BX  8.2  .K4 

Kelly,  Herbert,  1860-1950. 
The  church  and  religious 
unity 


THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


V 


THE  CHURCH 

AND 

RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


MAY  2  1913 


BY  V 

HERBERT  KELLY 

OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  THE  SACRED  MISSION 

ASSISTANT  TUTOR  OF  THE  THEOLOGICAL  COLLEGB  OF  KELHAM 
NEWARK-ON-TRENT 


WITH  A  PREFACE 

BY  THE  RIGHT  REV. 

THE  LORD  BISHOP  OF  WINCHESTER 


LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  CO. 
39  PATERNOSTER  ROW,  LONDON 
NEW  YORK,  BOMBAY,  AND  CALCUTTA 

1913 

All  rights  reserved 


TO 

MOTHER 

BEST  AND  DEAREST, 

WHO  WAS  PASSING  FROM  US  WHILE  I  WROTE  ON 
UNITY,  AND,  BEFORE  WE  HAD  REACHED  TO 
SPEAK   OF  FAITH   IN  GOD, 
WENT  HOME  IN  PEACE, 
MAY   IITH,   191 2. 


Una  cum  orationibus  omnium  sanctorum 

SUPER  ALTARE    qui  EST  ANTE  THRONUM  DEI, 

Oremus,  nos  quoque,  fratres  mei. 


CONTENTS 


PAGB 

Preface  by  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  -  ix 
Introduction    -        --        --        -  -  i 


PART  I 

THE  RELIGIOUS  DIFFERENCE 

CHAPTER 

I.   Proposals  for  Reunion    -----  21 

II.   The  Christian  Principle  -----  37 

III.  The  Unity  of  the  Church      -        -        -        -  52 

IV.  The  Church  Sacraments  -----  66 
V.  The  Holy  Communion.    I.       -        -        -        -  74 

VI.  The  Holy  Communion.    II.      -        -       -       -  98 


PART  II 
A  SYNTHESIS  OF  PRINCIPLES 

VII.  Freedom  -------       -  131 

VIII.  The  Historic  Episcopate         -        -        -        -  145 
IX.  The  Relation  of  Principles    -       -        .       -  166 


viii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 

X.  The  Two  Principles  of  Ministry 
XI.   Is  A  Synthesis  Possible  ? 


PART  III 
DOCTRINE 

XII.   Creeds  and  Faith  - 

XIII.  Creeds  and  Authority  - 

XIV.  Anglicanism    -        -        -  . 


PREFACE 


Respect  for  the  author  himself,  and  for  the  valuable 
and  originative  work  which  he  has  done  for  the  Church, 
made  me  promise  to  consider  his  suggestion  that  I 
should  put  some  preface  to  his  book.  But  I  do  so  now 
from  a  genuine  sense  of  the  value  of  what  he  has 
written.  It  is  a  book,  as  seems  to  me,  precisely  of  the 
kind  which  the  time  requires  :  it  starts  the  right 
question  :  it  is  written  to  an  extraordinary  degree  in 
the  right  temper  :  and  it  contributes  suggestions  of 
great  pertinence  and  value  towards  the  answer  or 
answers  to  be  given. 

We  have  watched  in  the  last  few  years  a  great  change 
in  men's  thoughts  about  Christian  Unity.  Without 
hallucinations  as  to  its  practical  attainment  in  our 
own  or  our  children's  time,  we  have  ceased  to  regard 
it  merely  as  an  academical  question  or  pious  aspiration. 
It  is  recognised  as  one  upon  which  thought  and  prayer 
must  be  focussed.  The  consideration  of  it  may  even 
increase  our  sense  of  its  difficulty,  may  impress  upon 
us  the  depth  and  range  of  the  religious  issues  that  it 
opens,  may  make  us  feel  that  only  by  some  wonderful, 
and  probably  catastrophic,  working  of  God  can  it  ever 
really  come  to  pass,  and  Roman  Catholic  and  Quaker, 
the  Holy  Orthodox  Church  and  Congregationalists 
be  gathered  with  Anglicans  into  one  truly  Catholic 
unity  of  faith  and  life. 


X 


PREFACE 


But  the  very  fact  of  opening  up  such  issues,  of 
measuring  such  difficulties,  if  it  be  reverently  and 
keenly  done,  will  be  itself  rich  with  gain.  It  should 
give  largeness  to  thought  :  it  should  break  up  and 
soften  prejudice  :  it  should  make  temper  gentler  and 
humbler  :  it  should  turn  much  of  controversy  into 
conference. 

In  such  conference  we  of  the  Church  of  England  shall 
be  more  and  more  obliged  to  face  the  question  what 
it  is  for  which  we  stand,  what  we  have  to  contribute, 
what  is  the  trust  to  which  we  must  be  devotedly  faith- 
ful. We  must  consider  it,  not  merely  as  it  is  considered 
in  controversy  when  you  make  your  points  against 
your  opponent :  nor  merely  as  it  is  considered  in 
instruction,  when  you  give  to  your  own  people  justifying 
reasons  which  they  are  prepared  to  accept  for  what 
you  profess  and  do.  We  must  consider  it,  as  it 
were,  in  the  open  :  and  with  it  the  question,  what 
we  lack  and  need,  what  we  have  to  learn  and  to 
receive,  what  others  may  have  and  may  contribute. 

It  is  from  the  Mission  Field  that  we  have  received 
(as  was  felt  solemnly  and  deeply  at  Edinburgh  in 
1910)  the  strongest  impulse  in  this  direction  :  and  we 
hail  it  as  a  reward  graciously  given  for  faithfulness, 
however  imperfect,  to  the  Divine  command  of 
Evangelization. 

It  is  this  which  makes  me  say  that  such  a  book  as 
this  is  at  least  exacth^  of  the  right  sort  and  goes  straight 
to  the  heart  of  our  Christian  question.  But  I  should 
say  more,  and  a  good  deal  more.  The  author  surely 
guides  us  with  true  instinct  to  the  centre  of  the  matter. 
The  reality  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  in  history  only,  but 
in  living  truth  and  presence,  as  He  Who  is  *  made  unto 
us,'  and  given  unto  the  world,  as  '  wisdom  and 


PREFACE 


xi 


righteousness  and  sanctification  and  redemption ' ; 
that  subhme  fact,  at  once  central  and  pervasive,  at 
once  historical  and  abiding — that  is  the  truth  by  which 
we  are  all  alike  judged.  Again  and  again  have  we  felt, 
as  we  heard  the  Evangelical  speak  of  what  Christ  is  to 
him  in  closeness  of  personal  presence,  as  we  read  the 
Jesuit  motto  '  Jesus  only,'  and  thought  of  the  passions 
of  heroism  which  had  been  wrought  and  suffered  under 
it,  as  we  watched  or  shared  the  solemn  reverence  which 
sacramental  worship  of  and  through  the  Lord  of  the 
Sacrament  can  perhaps  alone  inspire — that  to  each 
and  all  of  these  one  thing,  and  one  only  was  vital,  viz., 
the  Divine  fact,  the  gift  of  God  Himself  in  reality  and 
presence,  not  made  by  us,  or  fancied  by  us,  but  really 
given  to  us  through  the  Christ  and  the  Spirit.  That 
is  the  vital  thing.  We  have  felt  that  the  white-washed 
barn-like  house,  where  nothing  could  interpose  a  charm 
or  a  suggestion  between  the  soul  and  God,  and  the 
gorgeous  church  with  sublime  altar  and  tender  music, 
are  attempts  to  welcome,  and  cherish,  to  receive,  and 
not  to  '  conjure  up  '  that  holy  reality. 

So  far  the  author  must  be  right ;  right  as  to  what 
may  seem  at  one  time  a  Christian  platitude,  but  at 
another  time,  and  more  rightly,  a  stupendous  thing 
hardly  to  be  grasped  by  the  utmost  boldness  and 
steadfastness  of  faith,  and  not  to  be  retained  by  any 
less  power  than  the  combined  witness  of  the  whole 
Christian  community  indwelt  by  the  Spirit. 

Here  it  is  that  the  problem  of  unity  and  the  problem 
of  faith  are  seen  to  be  most  intimately  bound  up 
together.  We  are  driven  back  to  ask  what  we  believe, 
why  we  believe  it,  and  whose  witness  suffices  for 
belief. 

But,  further  yet,  the  author  is  surely  right  as  to  the 


xii 


PREFACE 


direction  in  which  we  of  the  Enghsh  Church  are  to 
look  for  our  own  indispensable  contribution,  I  mean 
the  indispensable  contribution  of  our  own  Church.  It 
must  have  specifically  to  do  with  what  in  a  famous 
phrase  was  called  '  the  extension  of  the  Incarnation  * 
— and  of  the  method  of  the  Incarnation,  that  is,  the 
tabernacling  in,  and  adoption  of,  human  lives  and 
personality  and  particular  chosen  media  in  order  to 
give  to  man  that  special  manifestation,  that  distinctive 
though  inclusive  gift  of  Himself  to  man,  which  God  gave 
and  gives  through  Jesus  Christ.  The  framework  of 
Order,  the  Ministry  given  from  above  and  specially 
empowered,  the  truth  entrusted  to  earthen  vessels  in 
the  language  of  Creeds,  and  the  simple  elements  won- 
derfully used  by  consecration  in  the  Sacrament :  these 
are  the  things,  generally  called  Catholic,  for  which  our 
Church  must  stand :  we  cannot  conceive  that  all 
which  they  have  meant  and  mean  in  Christian  experi- 
ence can  go  by  the  board,  or  be  explained  as  adultera- 
tion and  accretion.  But  then  the  discipline  through 
which  God  has  put  us  has  compelled  us  to  realise  how 
such  truth  as  this  may  be  and  has  been  abused  :  that  it 
carries  with  it  imminent  perils  of  materialising,  of  false 
lordship  over  God's  heritage,  of  stiffening  formalism. 
We  think  we  see  that  the  overwhelming  answer  to 
the  essentially  exclusive  Roman  claims  to  be  the  one 
representative  of  the  divinely  purposed  Catholic  order 
is  that  those  perils  have  become  realities  of  ever- 
increasing  sway  in  the  Roman  communions  and  have 
taken  shape  as  some  of  the  most  characteristic  features 
of  its  later  condition  and  life  and  teaching. 

Is  it  not  then  possible,  the  writer  asks,  that  the  Church 
of  England  has  had  imposed  upon  her,  and  has  partly 
recognised  (though  half-blindly  and  often  with  miserable 


PREFACE 


xiii 


ineffectiveness)  the  duty,  which  in  thought  and  practice 
is  so  often  the  hardest,  of  maintaining  an  '  antinomy,' 
of  combining  two  principles  which  are  indispensable  to 
one  another,  and  parts  of  equal  right  in  the  One  Truth  ? 
Of  the  Catholic  side  the  author  has  spoken  first  and 
more  at  length  because  it  is  his  own ;  but  he  recognises 
with  equal  clearness  that  there  are  on  the  side  of  what 
is  Protestant  indispensable  contributions  of  freedom, 
movement,  and  the  unmediated  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  soul  of  the  believer  and  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  Church. 

I  leave  to  the  author  the  fuller  presentation  of  his 
own  thoughts  and  suggestions.  But  I  must  add  a 
word  or  two  about  the  manner  of  it.  I,  at  least,  have 
never  met  a  book  in  which  there  was  so  determined  and 
steady  and  genuinely  humble  an  effort  to  draw  the 
sting  of  controversy  by  recognition  of  others'  merits, 
and  of  one's  own  and  of  one's  Church's  shortcomings 
and  blots.  Almost  to  a  fault,  as  some  will  think  but 
not  I,  he  follows  the  method  of  saying  stronger  things 
against  his  own  people  than  against  opponents,  and 
of  leaving  them,  brothers  in  separation,  to  do  the  like 
with  equal  candour  on  their  own  side.  This  seems  to 
me  almost  to  set  up  a  new  standard  as  to  the  temper  of 
discussion. 

It  may  be  for  this  reason  in  part  that  he  deals  much 
more  largely  with  his  relation  to  Protestants  on  the 
one  side  of  him,  than  with  his  relation  to  Roman 
Catholics  on  the  other.  Less  can  be  usefully  said 
where  the  quarrel  with  the  opponents  is  largely 
due  to  the  practical  elevation  of  exclusiveness  into 
a  dogma. 

For  the  rest  I  need  hardly  explain  that  I  am  very 
far  from  committing  myself  to  all  the  author's  expres- 


xiv 


PREFACE 


sions  or  even  meanings.  His  book  is  evidently  one  of 
a  through  and  through  independent  and  individual 
character.  It  could  hardly  be  written  by  authority, 
but,  if  I  am  right,  it  is  eminently  one  which  authority 
should  welcome  and  encourage  as  a  free,  fearless, 
charitable  contribution  to  our  most  urgent  needs. 

I  could  easily  make  criticisms  or  ask  questions,  some 
of  them  upon  matters  of  importance.  I  am  not  sure 
whether  the  author  has  wholly  avoided  the  danger  of 
those  who  know  too  much,  or  say  too  much,  about  such 
a  mystery  as  that  of  the  Lord's  presence  when  we  meet 
Him,  and  He  gives  to  us  Himself,  in  His  Sacrament. 
But  I  am  sure  he  knows  the  danger  and  means  to  avoid 
it :  and  that  his  firm  repudiation  of  localising  definition 
and  practice  on  one  side,  and  his  appeal  against  the 
practical  loss  on  the  other  of  the  characteristic  power 
and  beauty  of  the  Sacrament,  are  landmarks  of  true 
thinking. 

I  might  suggest,  too,  that  he  lays  too  little  stress  on 
the  ordination  of  the  Minister  to  preach  the  Word  of 
God,  as  well  as  to  lead  His  worship  and  bless  in  His 
Name.  But  I  see  that  contrast  colours  and  sharpens 
his  expressions  here  :  and  I  should  have  no  fear  but 
that  explanations  would  remove  even  the  appearance 
of  difference. 

Antinomies  must  be  expressed  in  antithesis :  and 
antitheses  can  hardly  escape  from  crudeness.  How 
little  the  author's  treatment  is  really  crude  may  be 
instanced  by  his  treatment  (pp.  205,  206)  of  the 
antithesis  of  reason  and  emotion. 

There  is  plenty  for  critics  to  lay  hold  of  fairly  or 
unfairly.  I  do  not  think  that  the  book  will  commend 
itself  to  those  who  are  not  genuinely  men  of  good  will. 
But  I  trust  that  from  these  it  will  receive  something 


PREFACE 


XV 


more  than  ordinary  welcome :  and  that  they  will 
confirm  my  own  impression  that  it  marks  a  step  on  the 
road  forward,  and  something  of  a  new  beginning  in 
what  is  usually  caJled  controversy. 

EDW.  WINTON. 

Farnham  Castle, 
August  2gth,  1912. 


INTRODUCTION 


It  seems  scarcely  necessary  at  the  present  day  to  urge 
the  need  of  religious  unity.  In  the  Christian  faith, 
as  in  all  true  and  living  faith,  the  ideal  of  unity  is 
implicit,  since  no  one  can  hold  a  truth  without  desiring 
that  all  should  share  it.  It  is  always  difficult  to  say 
how  far  the  ideal  is  effectively  and  consciously  realised 
by  the  majority  of  Christian  people,  but  certainly  it  is 
now  becoming  a  living  aspiration  with  multitudes  for 
whom  it  has  been  little  more  than  a  pious  dream.  The 
World  Missionary  Conference  at  Edinburgh  has  pro- 
vided its  classic  expression,  but  a  great  deal  has  been 
actually  done,  still  more  is  being  attempted,  not  only  to 
express  but  to  accomphsh  the  ideal. 

The  movement  in  practical  and  effective  form  is 
modern.  Only  thirty  or  forty  years  ago,  although 
many  might  regret  disunion,  we  were  all  so  boxed  up 
in  water-tight  compartments  that  few  imagined  there 
was  any  way  out  of  them.  Not  a  few  were  even  con- 
tented to  defend  the  divisions  which  seemed  so  inevit- 
able and  to  which  we  were  so  habituated.  Is  there  not 
a  real  helpfulness  in  variety  of  method  ?  Is  not  com- 
petition always  a  stimulus  to  energy  ? 

The  change  of  view  which  has  taken  place  is  not  due 
to  one,  but  to  a  whole  mass  of  reasons  which  appeal  to 
people  in  very  different  ways.  We  may  arrange 
them  in  three  main  groups. 

A 


2       THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


{a)  Those  which  are  most  felt  and  make  the  widest 
appeal  are  naturally  the  practical  reasons.  No  one  can 
help  seeing  the  waste  both  of  money  and  labour  through 
overlapping  agencies.  Not  less  serious  are  the  waste 
in  competition  of  the  energy  needed  for  progress,  the 
loss  of  spiritual  force  in  mere  friction,  the  loss  also  of 
opportunities  and  of  effectiveness  through  the  diffi- 
culty of  getting  separate  and  often  alienated  bodies  to 
combine  even  for  purposes  in  which  all  are  interested. 
Greater  than  any  of  these  is  the  powerlessness,  the  open 
scandal,  of  a  divided  witness  before  the  world. 

To  the  outsider,  to  those  who  have  httle  personal 
interest  in  religion,  these  considerations  have  always 
been  obvious.  To  the  religiously  minded  their  signifi- 
cance has  been  brought  home  by  the  wider  experience 
and  more  novel  situations  of  the  mission  field.  The 
comparative  slowness  of  apprehension  shown  b}^  those 
most  concerned  is  no  mere  accident.  Christianity  is 
a  gospel.  The  more  earnestly  and  positively  men 
realise  and  hold  it,  the  more  they  know  of  its  living 
power,  the  less  easy  it  is  for  them  to  seek  unity  with 
those  who  differ  on  matters  so  vital.  The  rigidity  of 
their  water-tight  compartments  was  due  not  so  much 
to  the  narro\\Tiess  as  to  the  reality  of  their  belief.  The 
broad-mindedness  of  the  unbehever  was  due  less  to 
the  far-sightedness  of  his  vision  than  to  his  inability 
to  appreciate  and  his  consequent  indifference  to  the 
meaning  of  what  he  saw. 

(b)  In  religion,  therefore,  as  in  science,  philosophy, 
politics,  or  commerce,  the  casual  criticisms  of  the  out- 
sider,— although  in  the  end  they  may  prove  to  have 
been  coriect, — have  no  effective  influence  in  the  history 
of  the  subject.  The  early  Greek  philosophers  had 
intuitions  curiously  suggestive  of  our  theories  of  atoms, 


INTRODUCTION 


3 


and  even  of  electrons,  but  their  speculations  were  of 
no  assistance  to  our  physicists.  True  progress  takes 
place  amongst  those  who  are  in  earnest,  and  who  are 
in  a  position  to  foUow  up  their  ideas  continuously. 

The  rapid  change  in  the  religious  attitude  towards 
the  problem  of  unity  owes  a  great  deal  of  its  impulse 
to  the  practical  considerations  given  above,  but  it  has 
been  made  possible,  and  it  has  been  initiated,  by  deep- 
rooted  changes  in  the  theological  outlook  in  a  multitude 
of  directions.  Beliefs  which  were  once  the  centre,  and 
were  felt  to  be  the  centre,  of  Christian  life  are  now 
relegated  to  a  secondary  place.  They  have  not  been 
repudiated,  they  are  not  even  abandoned,  and  yet  they 
have  somehow  slipped  away  from  us.  There  has  been, 
so  to  speak,  a  change  of  mental  routes,  leaving  the  old 
land-marks,  ports  of  call,  distributing  centres  of  mental 
commerce,  far  on  one  side.  We  do  not  know  why  the 
change  has  taken  place  ;  we  do  not  know  what  has 
changed  ;  we  only  know  that  our  minds  have  changed. 
*  Mental  routes  '  are  not  things  most  of  us  are  given 
to  thinking  about.  German  philosophy  which  few  of 
us  read,  German  religious  reconstructions  which  we 
only  know  at  second-hand,  lie  at  the  basis  of  a  new 
modern  mind.  The  most  potent  influence  of  all  is  the 
influence  of  Biblical  criticism  which  has  cut  loose  the 
mooring  of  centuries.  We  are  adrift  without  knowing 
quite  why  we  are  adrift,  without  any  charts  or  other 
material  for  setting  a  course,  without  any  clear  concep- 
tion of  what  we  are  leaving  or  where  we  are  going  to. 

(c)  The  first  group  of  reasons  then  were  very  real, 
but  somewhat  superficial ;  the  second  group  are  some- 
what negative,  somewhat  disconcerting,  for  they  imply 
a  loss  of  belief ;  there  is  a  third  group  of  reasons  for 
unity,  which  are  full  of  hope.    In  peace,  content  easily 


4       THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


becomes  self -content,  and  it  is  in  that  atmosphere  that 
difference  does  its  evil  work,  not  only  to  others  but 
first  to  ourselves,  as  faith  in  God  turns  to  faith  in  our 
own  theories.  From  competition  and  rivalry  only  too 
naturally  there  follows  bitterness  and  self -justification, 
unreadiness  to  learn,  unwillingness  to  admit  that  we 
have  anything  to  learn,  unwillingness  to  recognise  our 
own  failings  or  weaknesses  lest  we  should  give  a  handle 
to  opponents,  eagerness  to  judge  lest  we  should  be 
judged  ourselves. 

I  am  not  going  to  maintain  that  this  new  situation 
saves  us  from  these  temptations.  So  long  as  men  are 
men,  so  long  will  self-content,  self-satisfaction,  self- 
assertion,  remain  the  first,  the  most  natural,  instinct 
for  us  all.  It  would  be  hard  to  prove  that  we  were  in 
general  less  self-confident,  less  sure  of  our  own  wisdom, 
more  teachable  than  we  used  to  be,  and  yet  anxiety, 
perplexity,  doubt,  the  slipping  off  of  so  much  which, 
if  it  was  a  stay,  was  also  a  fetter,  are  helping  very  many 
of  us  to  realise  that  if  we  are  to  meet  the  new  intellectual 
situation  at  all,  it  must  be  by  a  larger  and  deeper  under- 
standing of  Christianity  than  we  have  yet  attained. 
Our  ideals  of  unity  are  not  whoUy  ideals  of  organisa- 
tions and  conveniences  ;  we  are  gaining  also  something 
of  a  new  spirit,  a  spirit  of  readiness  to  learn.  The 
movement  towards  unity,  the  growing  appreciation 
of  its  importance,  is  a  far  more  complex  phenomenon 
than  I  think  most  of  us  recognise.  It  is  a  movement 
mainly  among  the  Protestant  or  *  Free  Church  '  bodies. 
The  Catholic  bodies,  Roman  or  Anglican,  are  in  a  some- 
what different  position.  They  have  been,  of  course, 
affected  by  the  new  theological  currents,  though  to  a 
much  less  marked  degree.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
unity  of  the  Church  has  always  been  a  definite  part  of 


INTRODUCTION 


5 


their  theory,  and  they  have  always  been  in  consequence 
very  conscious  of  what  I  called  the  practical  con- 
siderations. 

I  am  here  writing  as  a  Catholic  in  the  belief  that  we 
as  Catholics  have  a  real  help  to  give,  yet  I  am  very 
well  aware  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way.  We  habitu- 
ally think  of  our  body  as  '  the  Church  '  ;  we  speak  of 
it  as  '  Catholic,'  in  a  belief  that  to  the  unity  of  the 
Church  every  Christian  ought  to  belong.  Believing, 
therefore,  that  that  unity  already  exists,  we  have  of 
necessity  held  aloof  from  the  efforts  to  constitute  a 
unity.  At  the  same  time  this  exclusive  claim,  advanced 
ior  what  is  only  one  body  among  many,  not  only  seems 
to  others  presumptuous  and  self-contradictory,  it  is  in 
practice  one  of  the  greatest  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
that  unity  on  which  we  profess  to  set  so  high  a  value. 

Nevertheless,  let  us  look  for  a  moment,  not  at  what 
is  immediately  under  our  eyes  or  immediately  possible, 
but  at  the  whole  sweep  of  the  question.  Here  are  two 
large  groups  of  bodies  which  we  call  Catholic  and 
Protestant.  Both  groups  are  divided  among  them- 
selves, though  in  very  different  ways.  The  Catholic 
differences  are  very  sharp  cut,  clearly  expressed,  not 
easily  to  be  got  over.  The  Protestant  bodies  have 
also  their  divisions,  some  formal,  which  may  be  over- 
come, and  others  of  a  doctrinal  kind  between  the  old 
and  new  beliefs,  which  are  very  difficult  either  to 
express  or  to  deal  with,  which  it  may  be  possible  to 
escape  dealing  with. 

In  face  of  this  situation,  it  is  natural  to  ask  ourselves 
what  we  can  do  just  now,  but  it  is  also  well  to  ask  to 
what  we  are  ultimately  looking  forward.  The  present 
is  very  fascinating,  but  to  what  does  it  lead  ?  The 
Protestant  differences  are  by  way  of  being  adjusted. 


6       THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


There  is  no  immediate  likelihood  of  a  similar  success  on 
the  Catholic  side,  but  supposing  there  were,  supposing 
we  all  drew  together  into  our  two  camps,  plainly 
this  would  not  be  a  reunion  of  Christendom.  Can 
we  imagine  we  should  be  any  nearer  a  reunion  ? 

There  are  two  ways  of  approaching  a  problem  of 
this  kind.  We  may  begin  in  the  easiest  and  most 
practical  way  with  those  detailed  advances  within  our 
reach.  Or,  we  may  grasp  at  once  the  great  general, 
underlying  questions  which  in  the  end  we  shall  have 
to  face,  and  we  may  ask  what  light  they  throw  on  the 
lesser  points.  Call  it  science  or  call  it  art,  strategy  or 
statesmanship, — which  is  the  sounder  procedure  ?  Oh, 
those  water-tight  compartments !  Are  we  not  like 
passengers  who,  having  been  flooded  out  of  their  state- 
rooms, cluster  in  the  saloon,  congratulating  themselves 
on  the  wisdom  of  their  escape  from  narrowing  restric- 
tions, but  without  any  thought  of  passengers  in  the 
other  classes,  of  the  steerage,  of  the  crew,  or  even  of 
the  ship  itself  ? 

What  after  all  is  the  nature  of  the  unity  we  seek  ? 
Is  it,  can  it  be,  merely  a  unity  of  organisations  ?  Are 
we  asking  merely,  how  can  we  work  together  without 
the  friction  of  an  active  opposition  ?  What  place  in 
that  union  do  our  beliefs  take  ?  Surely  they  cannot 
mean  so  little  to  us  that  we  must  treat  them  as  some- 
thing which  we  are  forced  to  maintain,  but  after  all 
as  rather  an  encumbrance  than  a  help  in  the  movement 
we  would  fain  make.  Surely  this  attitude  must  be 
wrong.  What  can  be  the  value  of  our  organisations, 
our  systems,  our  forms,  if  they  are  not  the  expression, 
the  embodiment,  the  forms,  of  the  behef  of  our  hearts  ? 
If  that  is  so  with  us  now,  it  must  be  equally  so  with 
that  to  which  God  bids  us  move  forward.    If  we  are 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


to  have  a  true  and  vital  unity,  which  shall  have  been 
not  merely  constructed,  but  which  shall  grow  and  hold 
together  by  its  own  life,  surely  we  must  begin  from  the 
other  side.  We  must  get  down  to  the  real  meaning 
and  power  of  our  convictions,  ask,  not  merely  whether 
there  are  not  elements  in  the  systems,  but  whether 
there  are  not  elements  in  the  convictions,  of  others 
which  we  need,  which  might  be  and  ought  to  be 
co-ordinated  with  our  own. 

It  is  only  from  this  side  that  I  can  approach  the 
question.  Of  the  movements  in  progress,  I  know 
nothing  more  than  is  known  by  everybody  interested, 
but  I  have  been  asking  myself  continually  what  are 
the  essential,  what  are  the  distinctive,  principles  of 
Catholicity  and  Protestantism  respectively,  not  only 
as  they  have  been  given  in  formal  statements,  but  far 
more  as  revealed  in  the  systems  they  have  shaped  for 
themselves,  in  the  manifold  results  which  they  have 
been  and  are  bringing  forth.  These  principles  have 
been  tested,  developed,  modified,  worked  out  and 
adapted  under  the  strain  of  history,  under  the  variety 
of  the  demands  which  new  needs  and  new  ways  of 
thought  made  upon  them. 

If,  then,  we  ask  what  are  the  two  distinctive  prin- 
ciples, the  answer  seems  simple  enough.  Every 
newspaper  writer  has  at  the  tip  of  his  pen  a  whole 
assortment  of  phrases  which  describe  the  difference 
with  sufficient  accuracy.  We  all  know  them  ;  we  all 
accept  them  ;  we  all  use  them.  Do  we,  however,  mean 
anything  by  them  ?  If  we  do,  plainly  three  questions 
must  rise  up  before  us.  {a)  Are  we  to  say  that  one  of 
these  principles  is  right  and  the  other  wrong  ?  If  so, 
it  is  no  use  talking  of  unity,  for  truth  has  no  fellowship 
with  falsehood.    There  is  before  us  only  a  long  vista 


8       THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


of  strife,  while  we  settle  which  is  which,  (b)  If  the 
history  and  vitality  of  these  convictions  forbids  us  to 
say  that  either  can  be  wholly  wrong,  are  we  to  treat 
them  as  mere  alternatives,  it  being  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence which  a  man  takes  ?  Can  we  seriously  mean  that 
the  gospel  is  built  thus  in  two  halves  ?  If  we  are  not 
prepared  to  accept  such  a  glaring  dualism,  (c)  must 
we  not  infer  that  these  principles  are  necessary  to  one 
another,  necessary  to  the  wholeness  of  Christianity, 
and  therefore  to  the  fulfilment  and  even  maintenance 
of  Christian  life  ? 

If,  then,  the  very  simple  and  obvious  phrases  are 
right,  if  *  Catholicism  and  Protestantism  represent 
different  aspects  and  sides  of  Christianity,'  if  it  be  true 
that  '  we  have  a  great  deal  to  learn  from  one  another,' 
then  our  task  is  plain.  In  just  this  way,  we  must  set  to 
work.  We  must  each  find  out  what  we  have  missed, 
and  how  the  essential  truth  which  others  realise  can 
be  reconciled  with  that  which  we  ourselves  possess  in 
order  that  we  may  learn  to  realise  and  possess  ourselves 
also  of  that  we  have  not  got.  There  are  few  Pro- 
testants who  will  not  admit  in  general  terms  that 
Catholicity  has  after  all  its  strong  points,  nor  will  any 
CathoHc  deny  that  Protestantism  has  its  strong  points. 
And  spiritual  strength  cannot  mean  anything  other  than 
truth,  cannot  be  a  result  of  anything  but  truth. 

I  have  started  therefore  from  the  easy  and  simple 
platitude  that  '  we  have  each  a  great  deal  to  learn.'  I 
have  tried  to  analyse  each  system  in  its  actual  working 
form,  to  trace  out  the  fundamental  conviction  on  which 
it  rests,  to  trace  out  also  what  it  would  seem  that  it 
had  yet  to  learn,  I  have  tried  also  to  compare  the 
distinctive  principles  with  the  actual  results  as  they 
are  commonly  recognised  in  the  different  religious 


INTRODUCTION 


9 


bodies.  I  have  found  the  enquiry  amazingly  difficult, 
for,  though  the  general  characters  were  obvious  enough 
to  everybody  and  admitted  by  everybody,  the  moment 
one  came  to  definite  statements  those  to  whom  I 
talked  disowned  them.  Hardly  anybody  would  admit 
that  his  own  body  failed  in  any  single  particular,  that 
there  was  anything  it  did  not  fuUy  possess,  or 
apparently  that  it  had  anything  to  learn. 

Whether  this  attempt  of  mine  will  be  of  any  service, 
I  cannot  say,  but  I  would  earnestly  press  upon  the 
reader  these  considerations.  These  differences  do 
exist.  Their  history,  the  results  they  produce,  the 
fruitless  controversies  which  have  grown  out  of  them, 
show  how  deep-seated  are  the  mental  differences  from 
which  they  spring.  I  have  only  tried  to  find  the 
meaning  of  the  broadest  and  least  disputed  facts,  and 
to  set  it  out  in  the  broadest  and  simplest  way.  Whether 
I  have  done  my  work  well  or  ill  is  of  only  the  smallest 
consequence,  but  it  is  of  well-nigh  infinite  consequence 
that  the  thing  should  be  done.  There  are  always  five 
hundred  ways  for  explaining  away  facts,  and  an  equal 
number  for  explaining  away  explanations,  but  there 
the  facts  are  all  the  same,  and  until  we  get  some  under- 
standing of  their  real  meaning  we  are  helpless  to  deal 
with  them,  helpless  to  escape  from  their  disastrous 
consequences. 

Talking  in  this  vague  way  of  principles  is  somewhat 
tedious,  if  I  do  not  explain  what  are  the  principles  I 
have  in  mind.  It  is  the  business  of  the  following 
chapters  to  make  those  clear.  I  speak  here  in  generaU- 
ties,  because  I  am  speaking  first  of  a  general  aim  or 
method.  And  that  general  method  of  bringing  prin- 
ciples together  is  one  generally  approved.  But  it  may 
be  helpful,  it  may  be  of  some  interest,  if  I  give  some 


10     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


account  of  how  I  was  led  personally  to  the  position  I 
am  here  taking  up.  At  least  it  will  give  me  an  oppor- 
tunity of  explaining  my  obligations  to  others. 

I  have  said  I  approach  the  question  as  a 
'  Churchman  '  or  as  a  Catholic.  Up  to  1908  I  had 
never,  in  fact,  seriously  approached  the  question  at 
all.  I  was  duly  in  a  water-tight  compartment.  In 
that  year  I  was  persuaded,  or  over-persuaded,  to  attend 
the  summer  camp  of  the  Student  Christian  Movement 
at  Baslow.  We  had  been  asked  to  go  on  a  genuinely 
Inter-Denominational  basis.  We  were  not  asked  to 
waive  or  conceal  our  convictions.  We  were  there  to 
help  one  another,  and  were  there  to  learn  from  one 
another.  We  were  also  free  to  criticise.  I  do  not  say 
that  we  were  all  free  from  the  bondage  of  party  and 
controversy.  Some  of  us  were,  and  at  least  there  was 
nothing  but  our  own  selves  to  keep  us  in  bondage.  We 
were  responsible  to  God  and  to  our  brethren  for  love 
and  truth,  but  we  had  no  other  responsibilities.  There 
were  no  reporters,  weaker  brethren,  or  authorities,  on 
the  look-out  for  '  remarkable  statements,'  causes  of 
stumbling,  or  questionable  views.  It  is  a  glorious 
thing  to  be  a  student.  It  is  not  quite  the  same  thing 
as  being  a  learner,  but  at  least  it  offers  one  a  good 
start  on  that  most  Christian  path. 

It  does  not  he  with  the  Student  Christian  Movement 
to  provide  a  solution  of  the  tremendous  questions  here 
at  stake,  yet  it  is  only  right  to  say  that  I  believe  that 
body,  by  its  executive  and  members,  has  done  and  is 
doing  more  than  any  one,  or  any  group  of  people,  in 
England  to  make  a  solution  of  this  question  possible. 
It  has  brought  us  together  under  the  best  possible 
circumstances,  so  that  we  can  learn  what  we  have  to 
give,  what  is  the  real  meaning  of  our  own  position,  what 


INTRODUCTION 


II 


also  are  oar  weaknesses  and  our  needs,  what  others 
have  to  give  us.  Whatever  I  have  been  able  to  learn 
of  the  true  value  of  a  '  Free  Church  '  principle,  I  owe 
to  this  source. 

The  absorbing  interest  of  the  Camp  was  that  one  had 
there  the  best  possible  representation  of  what  one  may 
call  '  British  Religion  '  on  its  best  side,  but  in  all  its 
variety  and  in  all  its  confusion.  Certainly  to  my  mind 
there  were  grave  deficiencies  in  the  Camp  theology, 
which  I  believed  would  develop,  were  developing,  into 
grave  dangers.  Had  the  Church  any  help  to  give  ? 
The  belief  with  which  I  went  was  that  I  have  described 
above,  that  which  is  ordinarily  called  '  High  Church.* 
I  beheved  the  Church  to  be  that  unity  which  Jesus 
Christ  had  Himself  estabhshed,  so  I  believe  now,  but 
then  on  what  did  it  rest,  for  what  was  it  established  ? 
By  itself  this  was  a  theory  of  organisation,  and  merely 
in  that  form  it  was  not  helpful  to  these  questions. 
The  Camp  was  deeply  concerned  over  the  very  essence 
of  Christianity  ;  it  was  not  concerned  over  ecclesiastical 
organisations. 

There  were  a  good  many  Churchmen  in  Camp,  and 
I  do  not  think  any  of  us  saw  clearly  what  message  God 
wanted  us  to  give.  It  was  about  this  time  I  read  two 
remarkable  papers  by  the  Bishop  of  Lebombo  ;  one 
was  written  for  the  Pan-Anglican  Conference  of  1908, 
the  other  for  The  East  and  West  (Oct.  1908).  The 
Bishop  pointed  out  that  the  whole  difference  between 
us  and  the  Non-Conformists  was  over  the  Sacraments. 
We  could  recognise  all  that  they  claimed  for  their 
ministry,  but  they  were  not  willing  to  admit  our 
sacramental  belief,  and  the  sacramental  power  we 
claimed  for  our  ministry.  This  change  of  the  centre 
of  the  problem  from  the  mere  High  Church  doctrine 


12     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


of  Church  authority  to  what  I  may  call  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  a  sacramental  gift  and  Presence  seemed  to 
me  a  suggestion  of  the  greatest  value.  It  brought  the 
whole  question  out  of  its  merely  ecclesiastical  aspect 
into  direct  connection  with  the  personal  spiritual  life 
in  its  relation  to  God,  to  man,  to  the  Incarnation  of 
Jesus  Christ.  There  are  few  to  whom  I  have  talked, 
whether  Churchmen  or  Non-Conformists  who  did  not 
realise  that  the  question  entered  here  on  a  new  and 
more  hopeful  phase. 

So  far  for  the  Church's  contribution.  On  the  other 
side,  it  was  impossible  to  contemplate  so  much  earnest 
enthusiasm  without  seeing  that  whatever  defects  it 
might  have,  its  defects  were  the  cause  of  its  weaknesses 
and  of  its  dangers  ;  they  could  not  be  the  secret  of  its 
power.  It  was  borne  up  by  very  positive  convictions  of 
its  own.  It  was  by  no  means  easy  for  an  outsider  to 
discover  precisely  what  these  were.  I  owe  whatever 
grasp  I  gained  on  that  side  to  a  most  striking  pamphlet 
containing  a  paper  read  by  the  late  Rev.  Heriz  Smith 
at  the  Salisbury  Diocesan  Conference,  which  pointed 
out  the  immense  freedom  and  variety  of  services 
allowed  in  the  mediaeval  system.  I  doubt  if  the  writer 
realised,  he  does  not  refer  to,  the  waj.  in  which  this 
variety  maintained  unity  by  the  fact  that  it  went 
together  with,  based  itself  on,  the  unity  of  the  sacra- 
mental presentation  in  the  mass. 

These  two  ideas  seemed  to  me  to  have  a  significance 
as  they  corresponded  to  the  two  sides  of  our  common 
intellectual  life, — which  we  call  fact  and  theory,  or 
observation  and  reflection.  In  our  religious  life  the 
somewhat  one-sided  use  we  make  of  each  seems  to 
explain  the  distinctive  characters,  the  strong  points 
and  the  weak  points,  of  Anglicanism  and  Non-Con- 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


formity.  Can  we  disentangle  these  principles,  and, 
having  once  got  them  clear,  can  we  show  their  necessary 
relations  to  one  another  ?  That  is  my  main  business. 
If  we  can  reconcile  the  principles,  can  we  look  for 
a  reconciliation  of  Anglicans  and  Non-Conformists  ? 
That  is  my  ultimate  hope. 

I  ought  not,  of  course,  to  make  either  of  the  writers 
I  have  referred  to  responsible  for  the  use  or  develop- 
ment of  the  ideas  with  which  they  supplied  me.  One 
last  obligation  I  must  confess.  All  that  I  have  ever 
learnt  of  theological  method,  of  the  analysing  of  ideas, 
their  meaning  and  significance,  of  their  reference  to 
experience  and  the  facts  of  life,  of  the  possibility  and 
the  way  of  co-ordinating  ideas  and  experience,  all 
that  I  may  possess  that  is  worth  possessing,  I  owe  to 
Frederick  Denison  Maurice.  I  never  knew  him  in 
life  ;  except  once  I  have  hardly  looked  at  a  book  of 
his  for  twenty-five  years,  but  I  owe  him  everything. 
I  am  told  people  do  not  read  him  now.  From  what 
I  can  see  of  our  present  theological  position  I  should 
think  that  is  very  probable.  I  am  told  he  is  difficult 
to  follow,  and  I  am  afraid  that  is  true.  But  I  believe 
none  the  less  that  his  is  the  help  and  guidance  we 
need  more  than  any  other. 

Before  I  go  on  to  describe  the  general  plan  I  have 
followed  in  this  book,  I  should  like  to  say  one  word  of 
apology  and  explanation  to  my  friends  in  America, 
and  to  any  readers  I  may  have  in  that  country. 

I  know  enough  of  America  to  know  that  this  problem 
is  far  more  pressing  and  far  more  difficult  there  than  it 
is  here.  I  know  enough,  and  I  believe  enough  in 
America,  to  be  inclined  to  think  that  it  is  possible,  and 
not  at  all  unlikely,  that  the  solution  may  come  from 
America  rather  than  from  England.    Yet,  if  any  in 


14     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


America  do  read  this  book,  they  will  find  that  it  is 
written — apparently — from  a  purely  English  view.  I 
hope  I  may  trust  their  intelligence  to  see  that  my  very 
British  way  of  treating  things  is  only  on  the  surface. 
I  am  thinkmg  of  America  very  much. 

If  I  dare,  therefore,  I  should  like  to  address  this  book 
to  America  very  specially.  But  then  I  am  only  an 
Englishman.  We  have  in  this  country  a  very  con- 
venient terminology,  with  distinctive  words  like  '  Non- 
Conformist  '  and  '  Free  Church,'  to  include  all  non- 
episcopalian  bodies.  If  I  tried  to  adapt  my  language 
and  illustrations  to  conditions  with  which  I  am  not 
reaUy  familiar,  I  am  afraid  I  should  only  cause  amuse- 
ment and  perhaps  irritation  without  being  in  the  least 
better  understood.  A  man  living  in  one  country  may 
be  able  to  say  much  that  will  be  useful  in  another.  If 
it  is  to  be  useful,  he  had  better  leave  the  application  to 
those  who  know  how  to  apply  it.  I  have  more  trust  in 
American  intelligence  than  in  my  British  ignorance. 

I  have  divided  this  book  into  three  parts.  The  first  I 
have  called  the  Religious  Difference.  If  we  can  for  the 
moment  assume  the  old-fashioned  Evangelical  faith  in 
Christ  as  constituting  the  central  ground  of  Christianity 
in  which  we  are  agreed,  our  obvious  differences  are 
over  the  religious  practices  by  which  that  faith  is  being 
reahsed  and  set  forth.  I  must  try,  then,  first,  to  show 
why  we  Churchmen  cannot  accept  the  most  obvious 
forms  of  reunion  as  satisfactory,  and,  secondly,  what 
is  the  spiritual  meaning  and  force  of  that  essential 
Church  principle  of  sacraments,  and  why  we  feel  it  so 
necessary. 

So  far  I  deal  only  wdth  the  Church  or  Catholic  side. 
The  second  part  I  have  called  a  Synthesis  of  Principles. 
The  Church  Principle  is  a  somewhat  angular  and  rigid 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


claim,  difficult  to  make  room  for.  The  Non-Con- 
formist Principle  I  take  to  be  the  individual  principle 
of  freedom,  which  is,  of  course,  not  at  all  angular  or 
rigid,  but  I  do  not  think  that  our  friends  realise  that  it 
is  still  harder  to  get  in.  The  rigid  things  of  life  are  un- 
compromising, but  after  all  they  ask  nothing  more  than 
their  own  place.  Freedom  is  rather  apt  to  be  tyran- 
nous. Just  because  it  objects  to  the  confinement  of  a 
limited  space,  it  becomes  a  claim  to  the  whole  area. 
Nevertheless  in  life  we  always  have  to  use  both,  and  we 
do  in  religion.  It  is  vitally  necessary,  therefore,  that 
we  should  consider  what  is  the  proper  ground  of  each, 
how  they  are  related,  how  they  can  be  used  together 
consistently  and  harmoniously. 

The  difficulty  of  a  sacramental  presentation  in 
religious  practice  repeats  itself  in  the  doctrinal  use  of 
Creeds.  We  have  here  really  two  questions,  (a)  Are 
the  Creeds  to  be  regarded  as  purely  intellectual  state- 
ments of  beliefs  or  opinions,  and  what  part  has  the 
intellectual  recognition  of  '  facts '  to  play  in  the 
spiritual  life  ?  (b)  At  the  present  day  it  is  no  longer 
possible  simply  to  take  the  old  Evangelical  faith  for 
granted.  We  are  bound  to  face  the  question  whether 
there  is  a  foundation  of  fact  at  all. 

If  I  were  writing  purely  for  instruction,  it  would  be 
much  simpler  if  I  could  have  begun  from  the  doctrinal 
ground,  and  then  worked  out  the  logical  consequences 
in  our  practical  system.  But  this  is  not  the  actual 
course  of  thought  along  which  men's  minds  travel. 
When  we  come  to  an  age  of  reflection,  we  find  ourselves 
already  members  of  a  system.  It  is  the  difficulties  we 
find  in  it,  and  in  our  practical  life,  the  contrasts 
presented  by  other  systems,  which  force  us  to  consider 
what  lies  beneath  them.    Most  of  us  only  realise  the 


i6     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


value  of  principles  as  they  are  shown  to  us  in  applica- 
tion. I  have  therefore  followed  this  path  of  experience, 
working  first  from  the  most  obvious  and  surface  differ- 
ences, because  for  most  people  it  is  the  easiest  path  to 
foUow,  though  it  necessarily  involves  a  good  deal  of 
repetition.  In  each  fresh  situation  we  may  be  re- 
applying the  same  principle,  and  yet,  except  to  the 
scientifically  minded,  the  principle  seems  different,  calls 
for  a  re-vindication,  because  the  application  is  different. 

I  am  not  therefore  engaged  with  some  problem  of 
abstract  theological  science.  I  have  dared  to  write 
about  a  question  that  touches  us  all  most  nearly,  that 
has  called  forth  among  religious  people  more  excitement 
and  bitterness,  among  irreligious  people  more  superior 
and  contemptuous  criticism,  than  any  other.  It 
would  be  useless  for  me  to  ask  that  what  I  say  should 
be  considered  coolly  and  with  impartial  detachment. 
No  one  is  in  the  least  likely  to  read  these  chapters  who 
has  not  the  most  real  and  Hving  interest  in  the  subject, 
and  no  one  is  in  the  least  likely  to  have  such  an  interest 
unless  he  has  already  a  stand-point  of  his  own. 
Certainly  I  have  never  been  impartial  myself,  and  I 
have  no  desire  that  anyone  else  should  be. 

I  am  here  concerned  ultimately  with  that  faith  which 
alone  makes  life  worth  living,  which  found  life  a  sordid 
round  of  aimless  labour,  flecked  with  meaningless 
pleasures,  and  has  turned  it  all — pleasures,  labours, 
failures,  achievements,  together — into  a  mystery  of  joy 
inexplicable  and  hope  undefinable.  I  am  concerned 
immediately  with  what  has  been  infinitely  precious  to 
me,  with  what  has  made  that  faith  to  me  real  and 
living,  with  what,  if  it  be  not  true,  would  leave  me 
altogether  puzzled  and  distraught  as  to  the  very  mean- 
ing and  possibility  of  that  faith.    How  can  I  profess 


INTRODUCTION 


17 


myself  impartial  when  I  am  in  fact  eagerly  longing  that 
others  also  should  have  like  fellowship  with  us  ?  But 
then  I  cannot  fail  to  recognise  that  this  is  the  exact 
expression  of  the  position  others  also  hold.  Have  they 
not  also  something  to  give,  something  equally  real, 
equally  necessary  ?  Why  should  I  ask  them  for 
impartiality  ? 

If  we  look  back  at  all  this  long  strife,  can  we  really 
believe  in  God,  and  yet  believe  that  the  passionate 
earnestness  of  our  forefathers  was  left  to  go  astray 
while  the  contempt  of  the  idly  indifferent  and  worldly 
was  the  road  of  truth  ?    But  then,  I  would  press  the 
question  further.    If  we  will  not  for  a  moment  accept 
this  on  one  side,  that  is,  on  our  own  side,  can  we  accept  it 
as  a  true  estimate  on  the  opposed  side  ?    Can  we  really 
believe  that  all  this  blood  and  tears  and  prayers  and 
patience  were  ever  offered  for  nothing,  out  of  an  illusion 
begotten  of  mere  obstinacy  ?    And  veil  it  as  you  will, 
these  sacrifices  were  offered  on  both  sides.    But  if  we 
shrink  from  any  such  view,  must  it  not  follow  that 
there  were  vital  truths  on  both  sides,  which  God  allowed 
to  develop  in  separation,  but  which, — if  both  are  true, 
— must  in  His  will  be  brought  together  ?    Is  it  not  the 
whole  weakness  of  Christianity  that  we  are  holding  in 
separation  what  God  means,  in  His  own  time,  to  show 
as  one  ?    Impartiality  is  such  a  bloodless  thing  to  ask 
for.    I  do  appeal  to  men  earnestly  to  seek  how  this 
unity  can  be  made  a  unity  and  a  reconciling  in  con- 
victions.   My  own  effort  at  it,  my  own  analysis,  may 
be  poor  enough,  but  is  it  not  something  on  this  line 
which  needs  trying,  something  which  shall  begin  by 
finding  what  these  convictions  are,  and  what  is  implied 
in  their  whole  nature  and  consequence  ? 


B 


PART  I, 
THE  RELIGIOUS  DIFFERENCE. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION. 

1  AM  afraid  this  book  must  begin  somewhat  awkwardly. 
My  immediate  aim  is  to  explain  certain  Church  prin- 
ciples, in  an  entirely  positive  and  constructive  spirit  to 
show  their  necessity  and  helpfulness.  I  have  no  desire 
at  all  to  defend  Church  people,  and  I  am  very  anxious 
not  to  be  merely  critical  or  negative.  Yet  I  must 
spend  one  chapter  at  least  in  defence  of  ourselves  and 
criticism  of  others.  After  all,  I  am  writing  a  whole 
book  on  a  question  which  seems  to  many  so  simple 
that  a  few  sensible  people  could  settle  it  all  with  a  little 
good  temper  in  five  minutes.  For  the  sake  of  what 
comes  after  I  must  therefore  make  it  clear  why  we 
Churchmen  cannot  accept  these  attractive  solutions, 
why  I  think  any  real  solution  must  go  so  much  deeper, 
must  call  for  far  more  earnest  thought,  patience, 
teachableness,  why  it  will  be  so  much  more  difficult 
to  reach. 

If  we  listen  to  popular  talk  and  to  popular  opinion 
we  shall  learn  that  there  are  many  easy  and  popular 
remedies  for  our  divisions,  though  each  speaker  is 
convinced  that  his  own  is  just  the  plain  common-sense 
treatment  which  religious  people  are  only  kept  from 
recognising  by  their  fanatical  narrow-mindedness.  In 
speaking  seriously  to  serious  and  earnest  men  one  feels 


22     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


somewhat  ashamed  of  taking  any  notice  of  these  self- 
confident  pronouncements,  the  superficial  echo  of  the 
daily  paper  and  the  smoking-room,  yet  they  have  their 
value.  Rough  common-sense  indicates  to  us  those 
broad  aspects  of  the  question  which  most  want  thinking 
over.  Its  clumsiness  warns  us  how  easily  our  merely 
practical  scheme  may  miss  the  real  heart  of  the  diffi- 
culty. 

'  The  immediate  root  of  our  disunion  lies  obviously 
enough  in  difference  of  character  or  temperament, 
which  produces  differences  in  our  way  of  thinking,  in 
our  opinions  and  preferences.  Religious  differences 
among  religious  people  must  be  inevitable,  sifice  all 
differences  are  drawn  out  the  more  sharply  just  in 
proportion  to  the  interest  we  have  in  the  subject  and 
the  strength  of  the  influence  it  has  on  our  life.'  Let 
this  stand  for  the  obvious  popular  view ;  we  shall  all 
admit  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  truth  in  it.  There 
is  not,  however,  only  one  obvious  conclusion  to  be 
drawn  from  it ;  there  are  two. 

Certainly  we  may  infer  that  intellectual  unity,  a 
unity  in  thought,  is  impossible,  for  even  if  there  is  a 
fixed  truth,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  know  what  it  is. 
The  promise  of  the  Gospel — '  ye  shall  know  the  truth 
and  the  truth  shall  make  you  free  ' — must  be  regarded 
as  a  vain  illusion. 

Yes,  we  may  infer  this,  but  there  are  many  who  infer 
the  exact  opposite.  '  Truth  there  must  be,  and  truth 
is  one.  Since  individual  thinking  can  only  lead  to 
endless  diversities,  the  unity  of  truth  must  lie  with 
some  authority  from  whom  we  should  be  content  to 
receive  it.'  And  this  conclusion  is  as  valid  as  the 
other. 

'  But  the  second  conclusion  is  altogether  a  contra- 


PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION  23 


diction.'  In  this  shape  I  fully  admit  it  is.  If  a  man  is 
to  learn  and  understand,  it  is  he  who  must  learn ;  no 
authority  can  understand  for  him.  Authority  may  be 
a  guide  and  a  help  in  thinking  ;  it  is  not  a  substitute 
for  it.  But  then  the  fact  is  that  both  conclusions  are 
contradictions.  If  the  one  offers  us  a  unity  in  thought 
on  condition  we  give  up  thinking,  the  other  saves  for 
us  the  right  to  think  by  proclaiming  that  thinking  is 
an  entirely  useless  occupation. 

Few  Christians,  few  for  whom  I  wiite,  will  be  at  all 
inclined  to  accept  and  still  less  to  advance  either  of 
these  conclusions  in  the  naked  form  in  which  I  state 
them.  I  gave  them  as  '  obvious  '  results,  asserted  so 
to  be  by  the  rough  and  unconsidered  judgment  of  those 
who  love  the  obvious.  And  yet  these  conclusions  are 
not  entirely  confined  to  those  whom  I  described  as  men 
of  the  world.  Most  of  us  who  are  concerned  with 
religion  have  been  brought  up  in  traditional  observances 
and  beliefs.  We  got  free  from  them  because  we  were 
forced  out  of  them  to  face  a  new  situation,  but  it  still 
remains  that  on  this  question  of  unity  we  are  being 
driven  forward  rather  by  the  pressure  of  the  practical, 
than  by  the  consciousness  of  theoretical  or  intellectual 
necessity.  There  is  so  much  crying  out  to  be  done. 
We  are  convinced  that  the  faith  of  Christ  has  in  itself 
an  answer  to  all  the  perplexities  of  men,  yet  we  cannot 
help  realising  that  while  Christianity  is  a  personal  faith, 
its  power  for  good  in  the  world  is  as  a  faith  shared. 
What  we  are  striving  to  effect  only  can  be  effected  by 
common  action,  and  common  action  must  always 
proceed  from  what  there  is  of  common  belief,  however 
far  back  we  go  to  find  it. 

At  the  same  time  most  of  us  have  been  content  to 
hold  our  beliefs  practically,  as  something  to  live  by. 


24     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Very  few  have  made  any  effort  to  examine  closely  into 
their  meaning  or  to  connect  them  into  a  thought-out 
system.  We  may  be  vaguely  conscious,  we  may  be 
most  uncomfortably  conscious,  of  difficulties,  but  we 
are  hardly  in  a  position  to  judge  of  the  sufficiency  or 
insufficiency  of  our  beliefs,  and  we  are  therefore  still 
less  in  a  position  to  realise  the  meaning  or  estimate  the 
value  of  the  beliefs  of  others. 

This  seems  to  me  a  very  dangerous  position  to  be  in. 
Practical  necessity  is  driving  us  in  directions  which  our 
minds  have  not  justified,  forcing  us  into  courses  which 
we  do  not  really  understand.  Thus  we  turn  half 
naturally  into  devising  or  constructing  unities  of  a  kind 
which  may  serve  our  need,  but  which  involve  conse- 
quences we  have  not  considered  and  never  meant  to 
accept.  The  two  commonest  of  these  forms  must 
receive  careful  study. 

Undenominational  Unity.  Personally  I  should  feel 
inclined  to  say  Undenominationalism  was  a  theory 
proper  to  politicians  and  men  of  the  world  rather  than 
to  the  religiously  minded.  I  believe  I  am  justified  in 
saying  that  it  is  the  politicians  who  originated  and  have 
pressed  the  theory.  I  have  to  admit  that  many 
religious  people  have  accepted  it,  and  I  suppose  that 
they  would  not  altogether  agree  with  my  views,  but  it 
will  not  I  think  be  denied  that  Undenominationalism 
follows  most  naturally  from  the  practical,  non-theo- 
retical, perhaps  outsider's,  view  of  Christianity.  Here, 
anyhow,  shall  be  its  statement  : 

*  Is  not  the  essential  basis  of  Christianity  broad 
enough  and  solid  enough  for  all  practical  requirements  ? 
If  so,  surely  we  may  content  ourselves  with  the  essen- 
tials and  cease  to  trouble  over  denominational  differ- 
ences of  merely  secondary  importance.    If  we  cannot 


PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION  25 


give  them  up  altogether,  at  least  we  can  leave  them  free 
for  those  who  find  profit  in  them.' 

1  challenge  this  theory  as  being  (i)  in  its  wording  a 
useless  truism  ;  (2)  in  its  reasoning  question-begging  ; 
(3)  in  its  whole  intention  disastrous  to  all  belief.  It 
satisfies  the  politicians  easily  enough  because  they  are 
concerned  only  with  the  outside  of  Christianity,  never- 
theless it  has  brought  endless  confusion  into  their 
politics  ;  it  has  utterly  misled  them  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  problems  with  which  they  are  dealing.  The  actual 
wording  I  have  given  is  my  own,  but  the  fact  is  that  the 
theory  of  Undenominationalism  cannot  be  expressed 
without  involving  itself  in  all  these  criticisms. 

(1)  The  statement  is  a  truism;  and  it  has  the  peculiar 
danger  of  so  many  truisms  that  it  veils  an  unconsidered 
answer  to  a  difficult  question  under  cover  of  a  useless 
obviousness  which  has  really  said  nothing  at  all.  Who 
in  the  world  is  expected  to  deny,  and  who  in  the  world 
is  any  better  for  being  reminded,  that  he  ought  not  to 
give  too  much  importance  to  what  is  unimportant  ? 

(2)  This  valuable  piece  of  advice  gives  no  help  in 
determining  what  is  essential,  what  is  important,  and 
what  is  '  too  much.'  Having  got  thus  far  it  jumps  the 
whole  question  in  the  unprepared  remark,  to  which 
nothing  leads  up,  that  denominational  differences  are 
secondary. 

But  what  is  the  meaning  of  '  secondary '  ?  In 
popular  use  that  word  is  often  applied,  in  the  sense  of 
accidental,  to  what  has  no  necessary  connection  with 
a  principle,  and  therefore  is  of  no  importance  so  far  as 
the  principle  itself  is  concerned.  But  secondary  in  its 
true  sense  has  nothing  to  do  with  importance  ;  it  sig- 
nifies only  that  that  to  which  it  is  applied  is  derivative. 

To  say  that  all  denominational  differences  are 


26     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


secondary  is  to  make  a  very  large  assumption  indeed. 
Personally  I  have  maintained  that  all  religious  forms 
are  secondary  in  the  true  sense,  since  they  are  the  out- 
come or  expression  of  the  relation  between  God  and 
man,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are  unimportant. 
There  are  very  many  Church  practices  which  we  use 
and  find  helpful,  but  upon  which  we  have  no  desire 
to  insist.  There  are  others  which — although  we  could 
not  call  them  the  essence  of  Christianity — seem  to  us 
a  necessary  consequence,  embodiment,  presentation  of 
that  essence. 

Our  reasons  for  this  view  I  must  give  presently,  but 
whether  it  be  right  or  wrong  cannot  be  settled  in  the 
off-hand  sweep  of  an  adjective.  We  have  a  right  to 
ask  for  serious  consideration,  and  we  base  our  claim  on 
grounds  which  are  equally  precious  to  all, — Non- 
Conformists  as  well  as  Churchmen.  The  obscure  by- 
ways of  history  are  full  of  foolish  theories  and  trivial 
controversies  which  have  long  since  proved  their 
emptiness.  But  to  apply  this  contemptuous  judgment 
to  convictions  for  which  we  find  earnest  and  capable 
men  contending,  living,  dying,  during  long  centuries, 
only  demonstrates  the  ignorance  and  short-sightedness 
of  the  judge. 

Let  it  be  granted  that  our  religious  differences  are 
secondary.  Are  they  not  therefore  worth  considering  ? 
Whenever  among  those  holding  the  same  principles, 
some  will  not  accept  the  conclusions  others  draw, 
either  there  must  be  some  latent  and  unperceived 
difference  in  the  meaning  put  upon  those  principles, 
or  else  there  must  be  some  inconsistency  in  following 
them  out.  But  the  principles  that  are  our  common 
starting  point  are  nothing  less  than  the  principles  of 
Christianity  itself.    Will  any  Christian  maintain  that 


PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION  27 


the  meaning  of  Christianity  and  the  consistency  of 
Christian  practice  are  not  worth  troubhng  over  ? 

(3)  So  far  I  have  dealt  with  the  proposal  of  an 
undenominational  unity  from  the  outsider's  point  of 
view.  It  is  natural  that  those  who  know  little  or 
nothing  of  the  meaning  of  religion  should  assume  that 
its  minor  distinctions  are  meaningless,  but  this  rough 
common-sense  is  not  very  far  from  rough  ignorance, 
which  is  a  somewhat  unsatisfactory  standard  for  the 
judgment  of  what  should  be  reckoned  minor.  Un- 
denominational ism,  so  far  as  it  has  any  definite  pro- 
gramme to  put  forward,  urges  the  abandonment,  or 
relative  abandonment,  of  points  of  difference.  I  am 
appealing  now  to  religious  people,  and  to  them  I  urge 
that  a  policy  of  abandonments  must  be  disastrous  to 
Christian  faith. 

We  are  told  that  in  religious  matters  our  best  hope 
is  to  go  back  to  something  simpler,  to  give  up  what  we 
thought  we  had  learnt,  yet  in  everything  else  except 
religion  God  is  bidding  us  go  forward  and  learn  more 
as  He  unfolds  to  us  more  of  the  ways  and  purposes  of 
His  will.  It  is  a  law  of  life  that  men  may  only  reach 
to  good  by  progress  and  to  knowledge  by  learning,  for 
life  and  nature  are  great  things  and  very  complex,  full 
of  the  infinite  wisdom  of  God,  not  to  be  grasped  off- 
hand by  a  single  effort.  Christianity,  which  is  the 
interpretation  and  key  of  both,  is  greater  than  either 
and  yet  more  wonderful.  Reverence  for  what  is  worth 
knowing  implies  a  readiness  to  learn,  a  longing  for  a 
knowledge  fuller,  richer,  more  consistent  than  we  have 
yet  attained,  and  in  God's  purpose  our  longing  is  a 
sign  of  our  need  for  that  knowledge.  We  strive  to 
work  out  the  fullest  consequences  of  our  belief,  not  in 
order  to  justify  them,  but  that  we  may  understand  them 


28     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


better,  and  that  facing  whatever  is  defective  in  them 
we  may  seek  what  is  needed  for  their  completeness. 

Surely  when  this  is  true  of  all  other  sciences,  we 
cannot  mean  that  Christianity  alone  is  a  thing  so  scanty 
that  he  understands  it  best  who  believes  least.  And 
if  true  unity  does  lie  in  the  uniformity  of  poverty,  how 
far  back  along  the  road  shall  we  go  ?  We  are  urged 
to  drop  our  denominational  differences  to  unite  in  a 
common  Christianity.  But  if  this  means  what  is  called 
'  orthodox  '  Christianity,  it  is  only  a  half  measure.  We 
cannot  be  unconscious  that  just  a  little  beyond  there  is 
still  a  chorus  of  voices  clamouring  insistently  that  we 
should  drop  our  dogmatic  presuppositions  about  Christ, 
'  Let  us  all  join — orthodox  Christians,  undogmatic 
Christians,  and  heathen — in  one  whole  unity  on  the 
basis  of  our  common  religion.'  But  why  should  we 
draw  the  line  only  at  Theists  ?  'Are  not  all  lovers  of 
the  good  at  heart  one  ?  There  is  one  common  moral 
ideal  for  all.'  Whether  that  one  common  moral  ideal 
will  stand  fast,  they  know  best  who  know  most.  Those 
who  know  little  of  what  is  going  on  imagine  easily 
that  the  line  can  be  drawn  at  this  or  that  point,  but 
up  this  road  there  are  in  truth  no  lines.  Each  stage 
only  opens  up  another.  Each  gains  a  wider  unity  at 
the  expense  of  meaning,  power  and  life.  By  eliminat- 
ing differences  we  cease  to  differ,  but  when  they  are 
all  gone,  in  what  are  we  united  ? 

To  the  modern  mind  undenominationalism  has  an 
attraction  which  it  finds  irresistible  in  spite  of  all 
disappointments.  To  men  of  the  world  it  offers  an 
easy  method  for  getting  rid  of  troublesome  questions. 
The  only  annoying  part  is  that,  of  course,  they  are  not 
got  rid  of.  To  the  more  religious  it  offers  the  comfort- 
ing sensation  of  broad-mindedness,  which  if  it  is  not  the 


PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION 


same  as  love,  at  least  provides  a  passable  substitute. 
It  is  really  curious  that  people  should  not  recognise 
how  narrow  and  limited  its  breath  is.  Undenomina- 
tionalism  is  tolerant  enough  of  half-beliefs  and  un- 
beliefs, but  it  not  merely  is,  by  its  very  nature  it  must 
be,  extremely  intolerant  of  positive  convictions, — much 
more  so  than  any  other  '  ism  '  need  be.  If  I  believe  in 
the  Mutation  theory  of  the  origin  of  species,  or  if  I 
believe  in  Protection,  and  my  friend  believes  in  the 
Natural  Selection  of  species,  or  in  Free  Trade,  we  may 
quarrel,  but  after  all  we  can  respect  one  another,  and 
we  may  begin  asking  whether  the  opposed  theories 
might  not  be  co-ordinated.  We  can  also  respect  the 
astronomer  who  knows  nothing  of  biology  or  politics 
and  thinks  our  questions  narrow  and  trivial.  It  is  not 
his  fault  that  he  is  too  ignorant  to  give  us  any  help,  but 
it  is  pure  narrow-mindedness  that  he  is  too  *  superior ' 
to  give  us  any  respect. 

Loyalty  to  honest  conviction  is  a  first  intellectual 
duty.  If  a  man  holds  a  belief  to  be  very  vital,  or  if  he 
holds  it  to  be  silly,  either  way  he  ought  not  to  allow 
himself  to  be  frightened  out  of  his  opinion  for  fear  he 
should  be  thought  *  narrow.'  Yet  between  these  two, 
the  man  who  affirms  and  the  man  who  denies,  the 
believer  and  the  unbeliever,  the  prima  facie  probability 
is  with  the  former.  The  man  with  a  conviction  declares 
that  he  sees  this  thing  to  be  true  and  important,  and 
he  pretty  certainly  must  have  seen  something.  The 
critic  cannot  easily  be  sure  of  more  than  his  own 
failure  to  see.  If  the  critic  is  also  a  scofer  and 
*  superior,'  by  all  Gospel  teaching  he  stands  self- 
condemned.  He  may  happen  to  be  in  the  right,  but 
his  evidence  is  valueless.  He  was  not  in  a  mental 
condition  to  see  anything. 


30     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 

I  maintain,  therefore,  that  whatever  a  man's  beliefs 
may  be,  right  or  wrong,  broad  or  narrow,  he  ought  by 
all  means  to  follow  them  out.  He  has  no  right,  and 
he  ought  not  to  be  asked,  to  abandon  what  he  sincerely 
holds.  I  do  not,  of  course,  mean  that  if  a  man  holds 
evil  beliefs,  he  ought  to  do  evil  things,  for  that  would 
imply  that  he  ought  to  go  on  holding  a  thing  to  be 
right  when  he  finds  it  wrong.  We  rejoice  that  men  are 
so  often  'better  than  their  creed,'  but  a  false  or  an 
evil  creed  is  an  evil  aU  the  same,  and  it  is  an  evil  which 
might  be  got  rid  of  if  men  would  honestly  face  its 
consequences  and  ask  themselves  whether  they  meant 
them.  The  evil  is  perpetuated  by  easy-going  incon- 
sistency and  lack  of  seriousness. 

We  are  told  that  there  was  a  business  man  who  was 
positive  the  world  would  come  to  an  end  the  next  year, 
and  went  on  financing  companies  to  come  into  existence 
the  year  after.  When  expostulated  with,  he  replied, 
*  Sir,  business  is  one  thing,  and  unfulfilled  prophecy  is 
another.'  Certainly  he  was  right  to  go  on  with  his 
business,  but  certainly  he  was  wrong  to  persuade 
himself  or  to  pretend  that  he  was  holding  beliefs  which 
he  did  not  seriously  mean. 

Inter-denominationalism.  To  the  man-in- 1 he-street, 
to  the  daily  paper  which  thinks  for  him  and  the  poli- 
tician who  acts  for  him,  undenominationalism  remains 
as  popular  as  ever  ;  among  sincerely  religious  men 
there  is  a  growing  sense  of  its  inadequacy.  The  only 
alternative  immediately  obvious  is  inter-denomina- 
tionalism. Can  we  not  at  least  ask  different  bodies 
to  come  together  as  they  are  without  any  abandonment 
of  their  distinctive  convictions,  beliefs,  organisations, 
or  practices  ? 

The  significance  of  the  proposal  depends  upon  how 


PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION  31 


much  is  intended  by  the  words  *  coming  together.' 
There  are  three  different  apphcations  of  the  idea  which 
may  be  expressed  as  Conference,  Co-operation  and 
Federation. 

(1)  To  reunion  of  any  kind  conference  is  an  indis- 
pensable step.  Before  we  can  do  anything,  we  must 
get  to  know  one  another,  what  we  are  each  seeking, 
what  each  beheves  himself  to  possess.  If  such  con- 
ferences are  to  be  of  any  use,  they  must  be  frankly 
inter-denominational  in  the  full  sense  given  above. 
Those  who  come  to  them  cannot  be  expected  to  com- 
promise, modify  or  abandon  the  principles  on  which 
they  are  to  confer.  On  the  contrary,  they  must  be 
asked  and  expected  to  state  and  explain  them  as  fully, 
as  definitely,  and  as  fearlessly  as  possible,  since  it  is 
the  very  object  of  such  conferences  to  get  a  clear  con- 
ception of  the  exact  nature  of  the  differences  as  well  as 
of  agreements.  Each  in  turn  must  also  be  ready  to 
give  full  attention  and  sympathetic  consideration  to 
the  statements  and  explanations  of  others. 

(2)  Even  as  things  stand  with  us,  there  are  certain 
matters  of  practical  convenience  and  limited  scope  in 
which  co-operation  between  religious  bodies  may  be 
possible  and  of  some  service  until  a  truer  unity  is 
possible. 

(3)  In  conference  inter-denominationalism  finds  its 
true  sphere  :  in  co-operation  it  ought  not  to  be  regarded 
as  more  than  at  best  a  temporary  expedient.  There  is, 
however,  a  distinct  proposal  on  the  part  of  many  to 
find  the  final  solution  of  our  difficulties  by  organising 
co-operation  as  a  permanent  system  under  the  name 
of  Federation.  If  that  is  carried  out  completely,  it 
must  imply  a  mutual  recognition  by  the  different  bodies 
of  one  another's  status. 


32     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


I  quite  realise  the  attractiveness  of  this  proposal,  but 
it  is  no  use  making  up  schemes  which  would  fit  circum- 
stances if  they  were  different  to  what  they  are.  We 
are  dealing  with  certain  convictions,  and  I  think  I  can 
show  that  this  scheme  on  its  own  principles  cannot  be 
applied  consistently  to  any  convictions, — and  certainly 
it  cannot  be  applied  to  those  of  the  Church. 

Let  us  be  quite  clear  exactly  what  are  the  principles 
of  this  proposed  federation.  Certain  differences  exist 
— differences  of  conviction,  belief  and  system.  There 
is  to  be  no  abandoning,  modifying  or  compromising  of 
these,  and  all  bodies  are  to  join  in  one  unity.  Then  I 
reply  that  either  {a)  the  differences,  or  {b)  the  unity, 
must  become  increasingly  unreal,  and  that  both  results 
will  be  equally  disastrous. 

(a)  A  man's  convictions  and  beliefs  are  the  inspira- 
tion and  guide  of  his  work.  If  he  is  to  be  a  teacher, 
these  are  what  he  teaches.  Plainly  there  can  be  no 
co-operation  in  matters  wherein  men  differ,  but  only 
on  those  matters  wherein  they  agree.  Just  so  far  as 
co-operation  is  systematically  applied,  just  in  pro- 
portion as  it  becomes  an  important  factor  in  our 
religious  work,  just  so  far  must  all  differences  be  held 
in  abeyance.    And  this  is  a  very  serious  matter. 

Every  action  a  man  performs  strengthens  and 
develops  the  principles  which  it  realises  and  on  which 
it  is  based.  Conversely,  it  weakens  his  interest  in,  and 
his  sense  of  the  importance  of,  those  which  are  reserved 
or  excluded.  It  is  ever  so  easy  to  say  that  we  are  to 
maintain  and  not  to  compromise  our  convictions,  but 
we  are  not  maintaining  and  we  are  compromising  that 
which  we  may  not  use.  All  of  us  who  have  had  ex- 
perience in  religious  work  know  only  too  well  that  men 
more  often  let  their  faith  die  through  neglect  and  want 


PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION  33 


of  use  than  kill  it  by  a  definite  and  thought-out 
repudiation. 

Again,  any  systematic  and  complete  co-operation 
must  involve  mutual  recognition.  But,  our  whole 
Church  contention  is  that  certain  things  are  necessary 
and  essential  consequences  of  Christianity.  On  the 
inter-denominational  basis  we  shall  not  be  asked  to 
compromise  that  contention,  yet  we  are  asked  to 
*  recognise  '  systems  which  do  not  admit  those  things 
we  hold  to  be  necessary. 

Inter-denominational  federation  in  the  form  of 
co-operation  is  then  only  another  name  for  undenomi- 
nationalism.  It  cannot  be  applied  to  those  convictions 
or  beliefs  which  a  man  holds  to  be  necessary,  those 
which  constitute  the  inspiration  and  power  of  his  life, 
but  only  to  those  which  are  to  him  mere  intellectual 
opinions  or  personal  preferences. 

{b)  Next,  let  us  suppose  that  the  inter- denomina- 
tional principle  is  fully  and  really  carried  out,  and  that 
each  body  is  to  be  allowed  to  maintain  and  act  upon 
its  own  belief,  the  results  of  federation  will  be  quite 
obvious,  but  are  they  the  results  we  are  seeking  ?  We 
must  face  that  question. 

Our  differences  are  due  to  the  variety — and  the 
variety  implies  limitation  and  imperfection — in  our 
apprehension  and  following  out  of  the  greatness  and 
many-sidedness  of  Christian  truth.  But  why  has  God 
made  us  so  imperfect  ?  Why  has  He  dealt  to  us  the 
knowledge  of  Himself  in  so  fragmentary  a  fashion  ? 
If  we  ask  in  impatience,  we  ask  in  sin.  If  we  ask 
humbly,  in  order  that  we  may  know  God's  will,  surely 
God  has  answered  us.  He  has  made  us  in  weakness 
and  in  need  because  He  has  made  us  for  love  and  for 
help.    Difference,  which  is  the  result  of  weakness,  was 


34     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


ordained  as  the  ground  of  union.  But  when  we  look 
for  help,  a  federation  of  differences, — if  it  does  not 
mean  undenominationalism,  the  abandonment  of  every- 
thing in  which  we  differ  and  therefore  of  everything 
in  which  we  might  help, — mx?ans  nothing  more  than 
a  distant  toleration.  Where  we  ask  for  unity,  it 
organises  the  permanence  of  separation. 

Inter-denominationalism  is,  in  short,  essentially  the 
system  of  toleraticn.  Toleration  has  the  outward  charm 
and  attraction  of  broad-mindedness,  but  although 
it  has  a  really  useful  and  necessary  place  in  our  life, 
it  also  involves  all  the  weaknesses  of  broad-minded- 
ness, and  it  is  very  important  that  we  should  not  allow 
the  attractiveness  of  such  words  to  prevent  our  being 
critical  of  their  use.  Toleration  is  not  an  essential  part 
of  Christianity,  but  love  is,  and  toleration  must  be 
tried  by  love. 

Towards  difference  there  are  three  possible  attitudes. 
We  may  believe  that  those  differences  are  concerned 
with  important  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong,  truth 
and  falsehood.  If  we  cannot  do  anything,  love  and 
wisdom  preach  patience,  and  patience  is  a  form  of 
tolerance.  But  if  we  can  do  anything,  love  bids  us  be 
intolerant,  for  right  and  truth  are  our  stewardship. 
This  is  the  ground  of  all  missionary  effort.  But  again, 
the  differences  may  be  of  preference  and  relative  ability. 
Here  toleration  is  a  duty,  for  love  envieth  not  the  pos- 
sessions and  capacities  of  others.  Lastly,  we  may  be  in 
uncertainty  as  to  what  is  true  and  right  and  what 
otherwise.  Here  also  love  counselleth  patience  and 
toleration  as  conditions  of  learning. 

The  Hope  of  Unity.  So  far  I  am  afraid  our  attitude 
on  this  question  will  seem  wholly  captious  and  negative. 
I  am  almost  more  afraid  that  others  will  be  content  to 


PROPOSALS  FOR  REUNION  35 


accept  it  as  such.  The  Church  will  make  no  com- 
promise, perhaps  cannot  make  one  consistently  ;  there- 
fore it  must  be  left  out  of  count.  The  only  practical 
unity  is  that  among  Protestants,  and  yet  this, — for 
reasons  already  given, — is  a  conclusion  of  despair.  It 
is  a  proclamation  that  the  unity  of  Christendom  is 
impossible. 

If  I  thought  my  conclusions  must  be  finally  negative, 
I  should  not  have  had  the  heart  to  put  them  forward, 
but  in  truth  it  is  the  unity  offered  which  seems  to  us  so 
negative.  We  want  a  larger  faith,  and  we  are  told  how 
much  better  we  should  get  on  if  we  had  less.  We  long 
for  brotherhood  and  unity,  and  we  are  offered  the  bars 
of  an  organised  isolation  which  shall  keep  us  from 
quarrelling.  It  seems  to  us  that  this  negative  result 
is  inevitable,  for  our  proposals  start  from  the  wrong 
side.  All  plans  to  construct  a  human  unity,  based 
upon  human  apprehensions,  must  involve  themselves 
in  confusion  and  contradiction  just  because  the  human 
side  is  the  side  not  of  unity,  but  of  difference.  Life 
cannot  be  made  ;  it  can  only  be  found.  A  living  unity 
cannot  be  constructed,  but  it  already  exists  in  the 
Christianity  we  are  trying  to  apprehend.  So  long  as 
we  set  our  own  theories,  schemes,  opinions  before  us 
as  the  main  element  to  be  considered,  the  more  we 
think  and  reason  and  argue,  the  more  acute  our  differ- 
ences will  grow  and  must  grow.  Once  we  realise  that 
truth  is  primary  and  our  apprehensions  secondary, 
once  we  realise  that  our  faith  stands  in  the  truth  and 
not  in  our  opinions  about  it,  differences  may  still 
continue,  but  we  shall  draw  nearer  to  one  another  as 
we  learn  more,  and  as  we  apprehend  better. 

This  distinction  between  the  truth  and  the  appre- 
hension seems  to  us  the  key  of  all  hope.    It  is  the 


36     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


greatest  weakness  of  our  Christianity  that  in  spite  of 
all  the  warning  of  our  differences,  in  spite  of  the  hosts 
of  new  theories  which  every  day  brings  forth,  discordant 
with  one  another,  as  well  as  with  our  old  beliefs,  we 
seem  to  assume  that  we  know  all  about  Christianity, 
although  we  have  hardly  given  any  serious  thought  to 
it.  We  take  new  ideas  up  because  they  strike  us,  or  we 
let  ideas  drop  when  some  objection  suggests  itself,  and 
it  never  occurs  to  us  that  the  infinite  riches  of  the 
meaning  and  power  of  Christianity  have  to  be  learnt 
and  understood.  It  comes  more  naturally  to  make  up 
our  own  notions  without  troubling  to  ask  whether  they 
are  consistent,  or  whether  we  are  not  missing  the  whole 
value  and  life  of  our  faith. 

I  have  used  terms  above  which  I  have  yet  to  justify, 
but  when  anyone  speaks  of  the  truth  of  Christ  as  '  the 
Catholic  faith,'  by  calling  it '  CathoHc,'  something  which 
is  for  all  men,  do  we  not  imply  that  it  is  something 
greater  than  any  one  man  or  group  of  men  or  any  one 
age  can  possibly  reach  or  *  possess  '  ?  When  we  call 
it  a  *  faith  '  are  we  not  implying  that  it  has  yet  come 
down  to  us,  is  seeking  to  possess  us  ?  So  at  least  I 
should  take  it,  and  for  that  reason  I  am  not  putting 
forth  some  opinions  of  my  own  or  of  those  who  think 
with  me  as  the  necessarily  correct  opinions  which  others 
ought  to  accept.  So  far  from  '  possessing  *  this  faith, 
I  confess  that  we  on  our  side  have  learnt  and  understood 
it,  yielded  ourselves  up  to  it,  very  imperfectly.  I  only 
put  forward  this  as  the  hope  of  unity — that  there  is  a 
faith  which  does  ask  for  patient  learning,  understand- 
ing, submission  on  our  side.  We  look  to  our  brethren 
in  hope  that  by  their  help  we  may  together  be  able  to 
enter  into  it  more  fully. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE. 

Certain  proposals  then  have  been  put  forward  for 
reunion.  I  have  ventured  to  criticise  them  because 
it  seemed  to  me  that  merely  practical  measures  were 
insufhcient  and  might  be  disastrous.  We  want  first  a 
clearer  conception  of  what  we  are  dealing  with,  and 
what  it  is  which  wants  reconciling.  I  have  suggested 
a  different  procedure  which  seems  to  me  to  have  in  it 
the  seed  of  a  higher  hope,  of  a  greater  success.  Chris- 
tianity rests  upon  certain  principles.  Our  unity  must 
lie  rather  in  the  Christianity  itself  than  in  our  appre- 
hension. If  we  understood  its  principles  better, 
should  we  not  understand  one  another  better  ?  If  we 
begin  by  studying  them  together,  might  we  not  be 
already  drawing  nearer  to  one  another  ?  As  we  enter 
into  the  Christian  life  more  fully,  should  we  not  by 
that  communion,  reach  a  far  higher  ideal  of  unity  than 
mere  co-operation  ? 

I  will  try  to  explain  in  this  chapter  what  I  mean  by 
Christian  principle  in  a  way  which  will,  I  hope  for  the 
most  part,  be  accepted  by  all,  both  Churchmen  and  Non- 
Conformists.  Christianity  may  be  regarded  in  several 
ways  which  it  is  well  to  classify.  So  many  contro- 
versies have  ended  in  mere  confusion  because  men  have 
been  in  too  much  hurry  and  too  excited  to  think 


38     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


of  explaining  in  which  sense  they  were  using  the 
term. 

(i)  If  we  consider  Christianity  first  in  regard  to  its 
Spirit,  it  is  (i)  a  life,  which  has  grown  out  of  (2)  a 
faith. 

(ii)  But  we  may  consider  it  also  as  a  Religion, 
that  is  a  practice,  including  (i)  personal  acts  and 
feelings,  but  including  also  (2)  certain  common  acts 
such  as  the  forms  of  worship  and  the  ministrations  on 
which  such  common  acts  rest.  Let  us  consider  these 
separately. 

I.  The  Christian  Spirit. 

(i)  The  Christian  Life.  In  itself  the  Christian  life  is 
nothing  more  than  the  Hfe  of  faith  in  God,  and  of  the 
love  which  springs  from  faith.  Its  character  is  laid 
down  for  us  in  the  Gospels,  emphasised  in  S.  Paul's 
writings,  realised  in  our  own  experience, — the  para- 
doxical richness  of  its  simplicity ;  the  positive  clear- 
cut  force  which  rises  out  of  the  apparent  negatives  of 
humility,  self -suppression,  self-forgetfulness  ;  the  fear- 
less strength  and  courage  of  its  self-distrust ;  the 
effortless  attainment  of  difficult  virtues  merely  from  the 
consciousness  of  God's  nearness.  We  know  the  work- 
ings, and  we  can  in  some  degree  justify  the  law  of  love, 
since  man  is  made  for  God,  yet  by  this  very  reason  no 
pyschology,  no  science  of  the  human  soul  considered 
in  itself,  will  offer  an  adequate  formula  by  which  the 
occurrence  of  such  things  can  be  predicted  or  explained. 
'  The  Spirit  breathes  where  He  will,  and  thou  hearest 
the  voice  thereof,  but  cannot  tell  whence  it  cometh  or 
whither  it  goeth.'  We  cannot  even  assert  that  the 
Christian  life  is  peculiar  to  Christians.  Mohammedan- 
ism seems  a  very  hard  master,  yet  there  are  men  under 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE  39 


it  who  stand  out  above  it  with  a  wondrous  gentleness. 
Buddhism  may  be  a  sterile  negation,  and  yet  we  may 
find  in  Buddhism  men  full  of  considerate  service. 

(2)  The  Christian  Faith.  In  judging  therefore  of 
individuals  we  can  only  say  that  God  knows  His  own, 
that  His  ways  are  past  our  finding  out,  and  that  we 
rejoice  it  should  be  so.  Although,  therefore,  we  cannot 
limit  God  even  by  ways  of  His  own  appointment,  it 
yet  remains  that  God  sent  His  Only  Begotten  Son  into 
the  world  to  be  the  one  true  Way,  open  to  all  men,  not 
merely  to  those  of  exceptional  character  or  attainment, 
through  Whom  we  might  come  to  faith  in  God  through 
knowledge,  and  to  God  Himself  in  power. 

First,  we  come  through  Christ  to  the  knowledge  of 
God.  All  nations  have  had  their  ideas  about  God,  the 
maker  of  the  universe  as  we  know  it,  the  Ruler  of  men 
as  we  live  among  them,  and  those  ideas  of  necessity 
differed  according  to  all  the  differences  of  intellectual 
history  and  temperament.  We  may  admit  that  many 
heathen  ideas  have  been  full  of  truth  and  deep  sugges- 
tion, though  many  are  exceedingly  foolish  and  puerile, 
not  a  few  are  evil  and  horrible.  It  could  not  well  be 
otherwise,  for  the  natural  universe  from  which  men 
have  drawn  their  ideas,  and  the  human  mind  with 
which  they  draw  them,  contain  much  apparently  evil 
as  well  as  good. 

The  claim  of  Christianity  is  unique  ;  it  is  a  claim  to 
finahty,  not  however  because  Christ  revealed  to  us  some 
ideas  which  were  better  and  truer  than  other  ideas,  for, 
since  all  human  ideas  are  finite  and  imperfect,  in  ideas 
as  such  there  can  be  no  finality.  Christianity  is  final 
because  the  incarnation  of  Christ  is  the  manifestation 
of  God  Himself,  concerning  Whom  our  ideas  are  formed, 
so  that  it  is  said  '  I  and  the  Father  are  One,'  and  '  He 


40      THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


that  hath  seen  Me  hath  seen  the  Father.'  The  Apostles 
in  hke  manner  are  not  merely  thinkers  with  a  teaching 
of  their  own  to  declare ;  they  are  first  of  all  witnesses 
of  that  which  they  saw  and  heard  and  their  hands 
handled  concerning  the  Word  of  Life  (i  S.  John 

i.  I). 

It  is  this  manifestation  which  has  Hfted  us  out  of  the 
darkness  of  our  own  abstractions,  out  of  making  God 
according  to  the  devices  and  desires,  the  reasonings 
and  inclinations,  of  our  own  hearts,  into  the  clear  light 
and  true  knowledge  of  God.  Differences  of  appre- 
hension still  remain  in  regard  to  this  manifestation,  but 
just  so  far  as  we  look  away  from  ourselves  and  our 
apprehension  to  Christ  Who  is  apprehended,  so  growing 
in  the  knowledge  of  Him  we  grow  in  fellowship  one  with 
another.  While  the  seed  of  division  is  in  us,  our  fellow- 
ship is  with  the  Father  and  with  the  Son. 

Secondly,  therefore,  through  Christ  we  are  brought 
not  only  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  but  into  union  with 
Him.  The  incarnation  is  much  more  than  a  manifesta- 
tion of  God  to  the  human  mind ;  it  is  the  coming  of 
God  in  power.  The  Logos  of  God  has  done  more  than 
veil  Himself  in  flesh  that  He  might  be  seen  and  heard 
of  men.  He  has  taken  the  human  nature  into  the 
unity  of  His  Person,  that  men  might  be  in  Him  joined 
to  God.  As  we  are  no  longer  left  dependent  on  the 
wisdom  of  human  thought,  so  we  are  no  longer  left 
dependent  on  the  strength  and  righteousness  of  our 
own  action.  Our  faith  rests  not  on  what  we  think  but 
on  what  Christ  is  ;  our  hope,  not  subjectively  on  what 
we  are,  but  objectively  on  what  He  has  done.  It  is 
of  the  Son  of  God  that  our  ignorance  comes  to  learn, 
and  our  weakness  comes  to  participate. 

It  is  this  which  makes  Christianity  missionary,  in- 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE  41 


tolerant  with  the  intolerance  of  a  Gospel,  of  a  *  good 
news  '  of  assured  knowledge  and  positive  truth,  aggres- 
sive because  driven  forward  by  a  love  which  is  intolerant 
of  barriers.  Is  religion  meant  to  be  ultimately  the 
means  of  union  among  men,  or  the  central  expression 
of  their  hopeless  division  ?  If  it  is  so  effective  in 
dividing,  must  it  not  be  equally  effective  in  uniting  ? 
Certainly,  Christianity  as  one  religion  among  many  is 
one  more  division.  But  if  Christianity  be  true  at  all 
in  the  sense  in  which  Christians  have  ever  held  it,  then 
by  it  we  are  not  separating  ourselves  from  the  heathen, 
we  are  holding  for  them  the  hope  of  a  unity,  not  only 
with  us  but  with  one  another.  We  want  to  make  a 
fellowship,  not  only  between  India  and  Europe,  but 
between  India  and  China,  the  Bengali  and  the  African. 
Nor  are  we  asserting  some  superiority  of  our  own,  as 
though  by  our  own  power  or  godliness  we  had  made 
men  walk.  Our  apprehension  is  very  imperfect ;  we 
have  nothing  of  our  own  but  imperfection  to  offer.  We 
ask  other  nations  to  learn  of  Christ,  that  we  may  learn 
of  them,  and  to  receive  of  Him  that  we  may  be  enriched 
by  their  grace. 

II.  The  Christian  Religion. 

The  ideal  of  Christianity  we  have  put  forward  is  that 
commonly  called  Evangelicalism.  The  salvation  it 
offers  us  is  a  salvation  from  self, — from  trust  in  our  own 
notions,  in  our  own  goodness  and  merits  whether  of 
character  or  of  acts.  The  means  of  that  salvation  is 
the  efficiency  of  the  atoning  death  of  Christ,  through 
which,  and  not  through  anything  that  we  do  or  are,  we 
are  reconciled  and  *  made  at  one  '  with  God.  This  is 
the  history  of  mankind, — to  have  sought  for  God  and 
to  have  found  ourselves,  to  have  struggled  to  make 


42      THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


ourselves  righteous  and  at  peace  with  God,  and  to  have 
found  ourselves  ahenated  from  Him  in  our  own  self- 
seeking.  To  the  failure  and  despair  of  men  this  Gospel 
is  preached, — that  God  has  found  us  and  has  given  to 
us  the  righteousness  which  is  in  His  Son. 

This  statement  has  its  own  difficulties  and  will  not 
be  accepted  by  everyone,  but  the  controversies  to  which 
it  gives  rise  are  quite  different  to  those  with  which  we 
are  now  concerned.  Churchmen  and  Non-Conformists 
alike  must  face  the  challenge  raised  by  modern  criticism 
in  a  multitude  of  ways.  If  we  are  forced  to  aban- 
don what  we  have  always  believed  as  the  evangelical 
faith  in  Christ,  there  will  be  no  very  important  difference 
left  between  us.  So  far  as  we  both  continue  to  maintain 
that  faith,  our  difference  lies  in  regard  to  the  religion  or 
practice  which  belongs  to  it.  For  our  own  part,  as 
Churchmen,  our  only  justification  for  maintaining  and 
even  urging  our  own  view,  is  that  we  believe  it  to  be 
necessary  to  the  consistent  maintenance  of  Evan- 
gelicalism. 

By  '  religion  '  we  mean  aU  those  activities  which 
result  from  our  consciousness  of  God  and  are  addressed 
to  Him.  The  word  may  therefore  be  applied  in  a  very 
wide  sense.  Under  activities  we  must  include  not  only 
actions,  things  done  or  said,  but  also  the  feelings  which 
accompany  them.  Again,  all  we  do,  our  common  work, 
study,  play,  rest  as  well  as  labour,  fun  not  less  than 
seriousness,  may  by  the  direction  of  intention  become 
a  religious  act.  It  is  indeed  our  ideal  that  everything 
should  thus  be  an  act  of  worship,  and  our  religion 
be  identical  with  the  whole  Christian  life. 

In  the  special  sense  of  the  word,  we  mean  by 
'  religion  '  those  acts,  notably  of  prayer,  praise,  and 
meditation,  which  are  necessarily,  exclusively,  directly. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE  43 


concerned  with  the  relation  of  the  soul  to  God,  in  that 
they  have  no  other  meaning  or  value. 

We  have  then  two  ways  in  which  the  soul  expresses 
that  which  is  within  her  of  God.  The  first  is  often 
called  '  religion  in  the  daily  life/  but  I  do  not  like  the 
phrase.  I  should  prefer  to  call  it  '  the  religion  of  daily 
life/  for,  as  I  have  said,  we  do  not  want  to  treat  religion 
as  one  thing  influencing  our  daily  life  which  is  another. 
We  want  to  make  that  life  itself  a  religion  and  act  of 
worship.  I  might  call  the  second  '  the  religion  of 
prayer,'  but  then  it  includes  a  great  deal  which  is  not 
'  prayer,'  at  least  in  the  narrower  sense.  If  I  may 
without  offence  borrow  a  scholastic  method,  merely  for 
the  sake  of  clearness,  I  will  call  the  religion  of  daily-life, 
*  effective  rehgion,'  and  religion  in  the  special  sense, 
'  formal  religion.' 

This  '  effective  religion  *  is  what  S.  James  speaks  of 
as  *  true  religion  and  undefiled  before  God  and  the 
Father  '  (S.  James  i.  27)  :  it  is  the  final  fruit  to  which 
everything  leads  up.  Yet  in  spite  of  our  own  dislike 
to  the  phrase  we  cannot  afford  to  neglect  the  vital 
importance  of  '  formal '  religion.  I  chose  the  word 
formal  somewhat  deliberately,  because  the  natural 
irritation  we  feel  at  '  forms  '  is  a  danger  to  us.  No 
doubt  formalism  is  an  evil,  and  bondage  to  forms  is  a 
weakness.  On  the  other  hand,  we  all  know  people  who 
take  a  pride  in  being  rough  and  blunt  in  their  manners. 
Many  of  them  are  really  good  people,  yet  their  contempt 
for  forms  is  also  a  weakness,  the  mark  of  a  self-will  and 
self-assertion  which  is  the  opposite  of  love. 

We  must  learn  to  use  forms  without  abusing  them. 
We  abuse  forms  whenever  we  exalt  them  into  some- 
thing good  of  themselves,  whenever  we  give  them  an 
exclusive  sphere  of  their  own.    We  use  them  rightly 


44     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


when  we  use  them  as  an  education,  a  necessary  dis- 
cipHne,  as  the  means  and  as  the  stay  of  what  is  higher. 
The  forms  of  language  are  given  us  for  the  expression 
of  true  and  right  thought.  It  is  an  all  too  common 
abuse  of  language  to  allow  ourselves  to  be  captivated 
by  mere  style,  yet  a  careless  indifference  to  style  is  only 
pride. 

This  is  as  true  in  religion  as  in  everything  else.  We 
are  not  Christians  because,  like  the  Pharisees,  we  say 
many  prayers,  but  we  shall  be  very  poor  Christians  if 
we  don't,  and  we  shall  be  very  bad  Christians  if  we 
think  ourselves  above  such  things.  We  may  make  the 
hohness  of  our  religion  an  excuse  for  treating  the  rest 
of  life  as  profane,  but  if  we  say  that  all  things  are 
equally  holy,  that  Sunday  is  as  all  days,  and  the  Bible 
as  all  books,  and  Jesus  Christ  Hke  other  men,  we  shall 
find  that  we  have  not  gained  a  deeper  consciousness  of 
the  sanctity  of  our  time,  our  literature,  our  fellow-men. 
We  shall  have  lost  all  sense  of  sanctity  and  reverence 
for  anything.  Religion  is  not  the  one  holy  thing  in 
life,  but  it  is  that  which  God  has  given  us  as  the  means 
and  witness  of  the  sanctification  of  all. 

How  it  operates  in  this  way  is  sufficiently  clear. 
I  said  that  it  was  the  peculiarity  of  the  special  or 
formal  religion  that  it  had  no  value  except  in  relation 
to  God.  In  all  our  miscellaneous  activity,  social  or 
individual,  in  all  we  seek  to  do  for  others  or  for  our- 
selves, it  is  easy  enough  to  say  that  we  are  seeking  God's 
glory  and  that  we  labour  in  dependence  on  His  grace, 
but  while  actually  engaged  upon  it,  the  work  stands 
before  us  immediately  through  our  own  choice  and  is 
in  process  of  achievement  through  our  own  energy.  It 
is  for  the  most  part  only  when,  laying  it  aside,  we  bring 
before  God  in  prayer  and  confession  the  emptiness  of 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE  45 


our  perplexity  and  weakness,  that  the  rehgious  phrase- 
ology recovers  a  reality  which  the  self-absorbing 
strenuousness  of  necessary  activity  will  not  easily 
again  take  from  us.  By  the  recurrence  of  its  acts  our 
formal  religion  disciplines  the  mind  into  the  recollection 
of  habit. 

Religion  and  Faith.  We  have  considered  the  two 
sides  of  religion  ;  we  had  better  now  give  a  moment's 
thought  to  the  relation  between  them  and  faith.  I 
called  '  effective  '  religion  the  fruit  of  Christianity  ;  I 
think  we  might  call  faith  its  source  or  root.  *  Formal  * 
religion  would  then  be  the  sap  which  nourishes  and 
develops  the  fruit  from  the  root  power. 

An  analogy  is  not  an  argument,  but  it  may  serve  to 
express  the  result  of  the  position  I  have  given  before. 
Christianity  is  primarily  a  faith,  for  it  bids  us  look  first 
to  God  and  what  He  does.  The  religion  is  secondary, 
in  the  sense  of  derivative,  for  it  is  the  response  we  make 
to  the  guidance  and  grace  God  gives  us.  This  is 
especially  and  peculiarly  true  of  formal  religion,  which 
constitutes  always,  both  for  Christians  and  heathens, 
the  expression  of  behef. 

Probably  some  will  contend  that  my  analogy  exagger- 
ates the  importance  of  the  formal  practices  of  religion 
which  are  not  the  only  means  by  which  the  root-faith 
can  reach  outwards  to  our  life.  I  have  already  will- 
ingly admitted  as  much,  but  I  do  not  think  anyone  will 
deny  that  religious  practices  do  exert  a  very  powerful 
influence  of  the  kind  described,  and  that  it  is  pro- 
portionately important  that  they  should  express  our 
faith  rightly  to  us.  It  is  possible  to  maintain  a  true 
faith  with  a  very  defective  expression.  There  are 
people  who  for  a  long  time  combine  a  sincere  love  for 
God  with  great  moral  weakness.    This  is  quite  common 


46     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


among  children.  It  is  also  possible  to  lead  a  true  life 
in  spite  of  confused  theories  and  false  belief,  and  this 
is  quite  common  among  people  of  a  special  spiritual 
capacity,  but  such  want  of  consistency  is  at  best  a 
precarious  and  unstable  condition.  It  always  involves 
loss  of  power  and  very  often  results  in  complete 
disaster. 

There  are  certain  psychological  reasons  always  at 
work  blinding  us  to  the  dangers  of  our  own  incon- 
sistency. Our  conscious  ideals  are  so  vividly  before 
us  that  we  hardly  realise  the  steady  moulding  force 
which  a  practice  has  upon  our  subconsciousness.  We 
never  think  of  the  difference  between  the  meaning  of 
our  actions  and  the  meaning  we  mean  them  to  have. 
It  irritates  us  even  to  be  reminded  that  there  can  be 
a  difference  between  the  actual  motive  from  which  an 
act  springs  and  to  which  it  belongs,  and  the  ideal 
motive  by  which  we  explain  it  to  ourselves.  Of  course 
we  can  see  this  well  enough  in  other  people.  We  know 
how  hard  it  is  for  them  to  get  past  the  ingenious  un- 
reality of  their  asseverations,  or  to  face  the  incon- 
sistencies which  are  so  harmful  to  character.  They 
know  so  well  that  bad  temper  and  self -pleasing  are 
wrong,  therefore  they  cannot  imagine  that  they  them- 
selves are  cross  and  selfish.  When  they  are  so  keenly 
alive  to  the  ideal  of  self-sacrifice,  they  think  it  unjust 
and  insulting  to  suggest  that  they  are  mainly  busy  in 
making  themselves  comfortable. 

This  confusion  reaches  its  climax  in  religion.  We  all 
know  quite  well  what  we  ought  to  believe,  therefore 
we  entirely  refuse  to  consider  even  the  possibility  that 
our  accustomed  practices  are  entirely  out  of  accord  with 
those  beliefs.  The  pagan  makes  offerings  to  his  idol, 
decorates  it,  ill-treats  it  if  things  go  wrong  with  him, 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE  47 


but  emphatically  denies  that  he  ever  supposed  the 
stone  was  god.  Apparently  there  never  was  such  a 
thing  as  idolatry.  The  polytheist  prays  now  to  this 
god,  now  to  that,  by  different  names  and  with  different 
forms,  and  positively  asserts  that  of  course  God  is  one. 
We  can  see  it  all  so  well  in  those  for  whose  doings  we 
are  not  responsible  ;  we  cannot  see  it  in  ourselves  just 
where  we  are  responsible.  'Are  we  not  Christians,  and 
do  we  not  know  that  idolatry  is  an  evil  ?  How  then 
can  it  be  suggested  that  any  part  of  our  practice  is  in 
principle  idolatrous  ?  Are  we  not  well  aware  of  the 
dangers  of  emotionalism  ?  No  one  therefore  should 
say  that  our  religion  is  emotional.  Christianity  is  a 
faith  in  Christ.  We  do  believe  in  Him  and  in  His 
power.  Therefore  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  be 
trusting  in  ourselves  and  in  our  own  states.' 

If  we  value  sincerity,  we  must  be  prepared  to  be 
critical  with  ourselves,  as  men  who  know  how  easily 
false  principles  can  creep  in  amongst  the  highest 
purposes,  doing  all  the  more  damage  because  of  the 
specious  disguise  which  prevents  our  recognising  them. 
If  truth-acting  is  no  less  important  than  truth-telling, 
we  must  learn  to  recognise  the  danger  of  these  easy- 
going assumptions. 

It  is  not  merely  the  vividness  of  the  conscious  per- 
ception of  our  principles,  nor  merely  the  meanness  of 
our  self-complacency,  which  makes  it  so  much  easier  to 
see  inconsistencies  of  practice  in  other  people.  Our 
minds  are  always  being  led  astray  by  the  fallacy  of 
particular  instances.  It  may  very  well  happen  that  a 
man's  own  faith  or  that  of  his  immediate  friends  really 
is  being  very  little  affected  by  its  one-sided  expression, 
and  the  more  clear-sighted  and  earnest  a  man  is,  the 
harder  it  may  be  for  him  to  see  that  anything  has  gone 


48     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


wrong.  Nevertheless  the  logic  of  a  system  works  out 
its  own  consequences  visibly  enough,  if  we  look  for  them 
over  a  broad  enough  area  and  for  a  sufficient  space  of 
time ;  and  this  we  are  all  the  more  bound  to  do,  since 
it  is  the  general  effect  on  common  men,  rather  than  the 
possibilities  of  the  spiritually  exceptional,  with  which 
we  are  concerned. 

Before  we  try  to  apply  this  to  our  Christian  religion, 
let  us  consider  by  contrast  what  expression  is  implied 
in  heathen  custom.  Wherever,  as  commonly  among 
the  heathen,  the  idea  of  God  is  too  vague  and  abstract 
to  bear  the  weight  of  personal  religion,  men  take  refuge 
in  the  comparative  definiteness  of  a  traditional  observ- 
ance, which  then  becomes  meaningless,  formal  in  the 
worst  sense.  Its  formality  is  the  perfectly  correct 
expression  of  their  belief  that  there  is  a  God  and  that 
He  must  stand  in  some  relation  to  men.  Its  meaning- 
lessness  is  the  no  less  correct  expression  of  their 
recognition  that  no  one  can  so  reach  to  Him  as  to  declare 
what  He  is  or  what  the  relation  is. 

In  the  Christian  order  personal  religion  can  develop 
without  fear  of  losing  itself  in  mere  dreams  or  individual 
imaginings  just  so  long  as  it  is  based  upon  the  assured 
revelation  of  God  in  Christ  Jesus,  set  forth  visibly  and 
in  power  to  all  mankind.  This  personal  development 
based  upon  the  revelation  and  act  of  Christ  shows  us 
the  safe  and  harmonious  co-operation  of  those  two 
distinct  pnnciples  which,  towards  the  close  of  the  last 
chapter,  I  called  the  '  key  of  hope.' 

If  then  our  Christian  religion  is  on  its  *  formal  '  side 
to  be  of  one  piece  with  its  own  faith,  it  must  also  find 
room  for  the  co-operation  not  of  one,  but  of  two  con- 
current principles,  (a)  It  must  present  to  us  the  work 
of  Christ ;  and  it  must  contain  (b)  our  own  response  to 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE 


that  work.  These,  though  different,  are  necessary  to 
one  another,  and  they  must  be  set  before  us  in  their 
proper  relation, — the  human  activity  being  recognised 
in  its  dependence  upon  divine  gift.  Each  side  calls  for 
a  little  consideration. 

(a)  Let  us  ask  first  what  is  meant  by  a  presentation 
of  Christ's  work.  That  work  was  the  redemption  of 
mankind.  It  is  of  its  very  essence  that  it  was  com- 
pleted by  the  one,  full,  perfect  and  sufficient  sacrifice, 
which  man  can  neither  add  to  nor  repeat.  What  is 
there  then  which  calls  for  a  presentation  or  a  re- 
presentation ? 

Do  we  not  however  see  that  for  multitudes  of  men  in 
heathen  lands  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  as  though  it  had 
never  been  ?  Our  belated  and  half-hearted  conscious- 
ness is  just  beginning  to  awake  to  the  duty  laid  on  us 
of  helping  to  bring  men  out  of  their  isolating  darkness 
into  the  redeemed  humanity,  and  what  is  our  mission 
work  but  a  presenting  to  them  of  the  Cross  of  Christ  ? 

Nor  are  things  at  all  different  with  ourselves.  The 
sacrifice  of  Christ  as  perfect  is  eternal,  but  we  are  born 
in  time.  We  were  saved  by  Christ's  death  on  Calvary  ; 
we  have  been  brought  into  that  salvation  by  conversion 
and  obedience,  by  repentance  and  baptism.  But  we 
are  not  only  bom  in  time,  we  are  not  only  re-bom  or 
regenerated  in  time,  we  change  with  time.  Day  by 
day  we  wake  up  as  with  a  new  mind  in  a  new  world  to 
new  deeds  which  call  for  fresh  help.  We  do  not  want 
a  new  sacrifice,  we  do  need  that  it  should  be  renewed 
in  us. 

If  then  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  is  still  to  mean  anything, 
it  must  be  more  than  a  past  event,  it  must  be  and  is  a 
living  force  through  its  capacity  of  being  individualised 
to  individual  men,  and  daily  renewed  in  application 

D 


50     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


to  each  man.  This  is  the  law  by  which  the  eternal 
manifests  itself  and  is  realised  in  time.  Nothing  adds 
to  the  perfect,  but  thus  the  perfect  fulfils  itself  in  the 
imperfect. 

It  is  the  special  sphere  of  Christian  religion  to  pro- 
vide this  renewal  and  fulfilment  in  human  life,  and  each 
such  fulfilment  is  an  anamnesis  or  memorial,  just  as  it 
re-presents  the  historic  fact  of  Christ's  death.  Yet  it  is 
not  a  mere  reminiscence  of  something  bye-gone,  now 
only  capable  of  being  mentally  realised  in  imagination. 
That  which  is  still  living  and  effective  for  all  is  presented 
in  its  continuous  power. 

This  presentation  therefore  would  be  the  essentially 
*  common  '  side  of  worship.  Whatever  is  of  our  own, 
whatever  is  subjective,  our  thoughts,  memories,  feelings, 
are  different  in  each  person  ;  they  change  even  in  the 
same  person  in  some  degree  with  the  changes  in  his  life. 
It  is  always  by  the  objective  fact  itself  that  we  are 
brought  out  of  individualism  into  fellowship.  It  is  just 
the  fact  which  remains  the  same,  fixed  and  unchange- 
able, whether  we  '  discern  '  it  or  not,  however  differ- 
ently we  realise  it.  It  did  not  happen  because  we 
admit  it,  nor  does  it  cease  to  be  true  if  we  choose  to 
deny  it. 

{b)  The  second  side  of  our  religious  practice  is  the 
response  we  make  to  Christ's  work,  and  this  is  the 
personal  side,  proceeding  from  the  gift  of  the  Spirit, 
manifesting  the  diversity  of  His  operation  among  men, 
Who  moves  each  to  his  own  appreciation,  and  therefore 
to  his  own  response,  the  diversity  of  the  Spirit's 
operation  being  manifested  according  to  all  the  variety 
of  character  and  temperament. 

Both  sides  of  the  idea  are  represented  to  us  in  the 
Vision  of  the  Heavenly  City,  which  lying  four-square  is 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PRINCIPLE  51 


straitly  marked  out  with  the  great  apostohc  wall  of 
twelve  foundations,  yet  three  gates,  though  guarded, 
stand  open  on  each  side.  Into  its  unity  all  nations 
bring  each  their  own  diverse  glory  and  honour. 

I  have  ventured  to  emphasise  these  two  aspects,  for 
while  the  evangelical  faith  requires  and  implies  both, 
it  is  just  the  unity  of  their  necessary  inter-dependence 
which  our  religious  practice  has  torn  asunder.  If  I  may 
apply  this  to  the  question  before  us,  anticipating  what 
I  must  show  more  fully  hereafter,  has  not  the  Church 
been  strong  so  far  as  she  has  held  fast  to  the  sacra- 
mental forms  which  witness  and  belong  to  the  gifts  of 
Christ  ?  Has  it  not  been  the  strength  of  Non-Con- 
formity that  it  has  maintained  and  developed  the 
witness  of  the  personal  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

The  unity  we  long  for  is  a  unity  which  shall  combine 
both  sides.  We  shrink  from  a  union  which  acquiesces 
in  their  separation.  Must  we  for  that  reason  lose  the 
sympathy  of  our  brethren  ?  Even  if  we  Churchmen 
had  only  ourselves  to  think  of  we  could  not  be  content. 
We  are  not  half  as  conscious  as  we  ought  to  be,  and  yet 
we  are  conscious,  how  much  we  are  losing  by  disunion, 
how  inadequate  is  our  grasp  of  the  richness  of  faith, 
how  much  our  Church  life  needs  to  be  kindled  by  a  new 
fervour.  But,  little  as  we  like  to  mingle  criticism  of 
others  with  confession  of  our  own  weakness,  it  seems  to 
us  no  less  clear  that  others, — indeed  that  all, — are  in 
need  of  the  gifts  which  God  has  given  to  us.  However 
feeble  and  half-hearted  our  own  use  of  them  may  be, 
we  cannot  admit  that  these  gifts  are  merely  things 
serviceable  to  us  with  which  others  can  well  dispense. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Of  what  I  have  tried  to  say  this  is  perhaps  the  sum. 
Oiir  life  is  built  out  of  the  inter-operation  of  two  prin- 
ciples, which  I  may  call  truth  and  apprehension.  The 
truth  is  the  common  factor  which  is  the  same  for  all ; 
apprehensions  of  the  truth  are  personal,  and  being 
partial  are  endlessly  varied.  If  we  apply  this  to  the 
Christian  life,  the  incarnation  and  redemption  repre- 
sent the  common  factor  on  which  a  very  varied  develop- 
ment follows.  It  is  in  the  completeness  and  adequacy 
of  its  double  aspect  that  Christianity  differs  from 
heathenism.  Among  the  heathen  to  whom  the  revela- 
tion of  Christ  has  not  come,  the  whole  universe  lies 
open  as  a  basis  for  religious  selection,  and  apprehension 
becomes  an  unchecked  movement.  There  can  be  no 
true  development  or  progress,  because  there  is  no 
certain  conception  of  a  religious  truth  to  be  apprehended 
or  developed.  To  Christianity  the  distinction  of  the 
two  parts  is  vital,  but  it  is  a  distinction  and  not  a 
separation,  for  the  two  are  brought  into  unity.  Rooted 
in  Christ,  the  life  grows  freely  outwards. 

This  is  the  whole  text  of  all  I  am  trying  to  say.  In 
applying  it  first  to  the  question  of  the  Church,  we  come 
within  the  controversial  area,  and  this  part  of  our  sub- 
ject in  particular  is  involved  in  many  difficulties.  We 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  53 


who  call  ourselves  '  the  Church '  have  by  so  doing  un- 
churched all  other  bodies.  At  the  same  time,  if  we  are 
to  admit  that  all  other  religious  bodies  are  equally 
churches,  we  must  give  up  our  contention  of  the  essen- 
tial unity  of  the  Church.  We  shall  have  opened  the 
door  to  those  ideals  of  co-operation  and  federation 
which  seem  to  us  as  ideals  so  unsatisfactory  and  in- 
adequate. 

Here  then  we  are  apparently  confronted  with  an 
irreconcilable  contradiction  at  the  very  start.  Person- 
ally I  do  not  believe  that  the  difference  is  at  all  irrecon- 
cilable, but  I  am  quite  sure  that  if  we  begin  by  discuss- 
ing that  question — '  Which  is  the  Church  ?  ' — we  shall 
find  ourselves  lost  in  an  interminable  confusion. 
Certainly  we  have  been  engaged  on  a  very  long  con- 
troversy over  just  this  point,  if  after  it  all  the  question 
has  made  no  progress  whatever,  is  not  that  sufficient 
to  prove  that  we  have  not  reached  the  central  diffi- 
culty ?  We  are  arguing  what  is  the  proper  organisa- 
tion or  system  for  doing  something,  or  authorised  to  do 
it,  and  we  argue  in  circles  without  ever  touching  one 
another,  because  we  have  never  made  up  our  minds 
what  is  the  thing  the  organisation  is  to  do,  what  is  its 
significance,  what  is  implied  in  it,  why  it  requires  an 
authorisation. 

For  some  reasons  I  should  prefer  to  leave  the  question 
of  the  Church  to  my  Second  Part,  where  I  hope  to  deal 
with  it  more  fully,  and  to  show  why  I  think  our  differ- 
ence is  not  so  irreconcilable,  and  the  question — '  Which 
is  the  Church  ?  '  is  not  so  important  as  they  appear  to 
be,  for  the  real  difference  lies  in  a  quite  other  direction. 
Since,  however,  we  are  concerned  altogether  with  a 
question  of  unity,  I  must  explain  what  we  Churchmen 
mean  by  it.    I  do  not  suppose  that  Non-Conformists 


54     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


will  altogether  agree  with  what  I  have  to  say,  but  as  I 
am  dealing  rather  with  the  principles  which  should  be 
kept  in  mind  than  with  the  forms  in  which  they  must 
be  realised,  I  do  not  think  they  will  greatly  differ. 

I  want  to  emphasise  that  we  are  seeking  a  unity 
rather  than  a  union,  and  the  difference  is  of  great 
importance.  By  a  '  unity  '  we  mean  a  single  body, 
having  different  organs,  and  yet  filled  and  controlled 
with  one  life.  By  a  '  union '  we  mean  a  mutual 
relation  established  between  different  bodies,  each  of 
which  retains  its  own  independence.  Thus,  the  states 
of  Europe  form  by  treaties  and  international  law  a 
union,  capable  of  common  action  for  certain  definite 
purposes.  The  *  States '  of  North  America  on  the 
other  hand,  while  for  certain  purposes  distinct,  yet  are 
'  united,'  have  a  unity,  much  deeper,  more  *  spiritual,' 
than  their  difference.    They  form  one  country. 

The  instances  I  have  used  may  be  of  a  somewhat 
rough  type,  and  I  have  no  interest  in  pressing  them  too 
far,  but  they  have  their  own  lesson.  We  are  talking  of 
spiritual  things,  and  of  spiritual  ideas  and  spiritual 
principles  in  a  common  spiritual  life.  The  material 
organisation  of  administrative  and  legislative  govern- 
ment has  grown  from  the  spiritual  life,  and  grown  with 
it,  constitutes  a  part  of  its  expression. 

In  considering  the  Church  system,  the  unity  of  its 
organisation,  the  necessity  of  its  system,  the  form  that 
it  should  take,  are  the  points  most  present  to  our  con- 
sciousness. We  may  grant  that  we  have  come,  or 
many  of  us  have  come,  to  recognise  that  some  kind  of 
unity  is  required,  but  beyond  that  point  we  are  hope- 
lessly at  variance.  The  true  centre  of  Christianity, 
however,  is  not  organisation,  but  worship.  The  Church, 
therefore,  is  primarily  an  organisation  Joy  worship,  and 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH 


55 


it  is  the  nature  of  this  supreme  act  which  must  deter- 
mine our  ideas  of  organisation. 

My  main  business  in  the  First  Part  is  then  to  explain 
the  Church  conception  of  worship.  I  do  not  say  that 
the  Church  conception  is  the  only  right  one  ;  I  do  urge 
that  it  is  one  of  great  spiritual  importance  for  which 
a  place  must  be  found  in  the  true  Christian  life.  We 
will  consider  afterwards  what  room  is  left,  or  ought  to 
be  left,  for  the  organisation  of  other  principles  or  con- 
ceptions of  worship.  I  must  first  speak,  however,  of 
the  necessity,  value,  importance,  place  of  system  and 
organisation.  Does  worship  belong  to  the  '  we '  or 
to  the  '  I,'  to  the  organisation,  that  is,  the  community, 
or  to  the  individuals  ?  What  is  the  relation  between 
the  two  ? 

If  in  our  ethical  study  we  try  to  construct  a  con- 
sistent theory  of  human  conduct,  we  find  ourselves 
confronted  by  this  difficulty — to  ourselves  we  seem  to 
be  individuals,  living  our  own  lives,  thinking  our 
thoughts,  masters  of  our  own  acts,  and  the  '  Com- 
munity '  is  merely  a  name  for  an  aggregate  of  other 
individuals  similarly  situated.  Nevertheless,  nothing 
is  more  certain  than  that  to  the  community  we  owe 
both  the  fact  and  the  possibility  of  maintaining  our 
individual  existence.  This  is  not  only  true  of  our 
material  existence.  To  the  intercourse  which  the 
community  provides  we  owe  that  very  intellectual 
development,  the  growth  of  intelligence,  which  is 
creating  and  intensifying  the  sense  of  individualism. 

Further,  it  should  be  noted,  that  we  owe  the  greater 
part  of  all  this  growth  to  the  community  as  such.  No 
doubt  we  owe  a  great  deal  also  to  particular  members 
of  the  community,  but  what  we  receive  from  indi- 
viduals is  incidental  and  occasional.    For  that  reason 


56     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


it  impresses  itself  upon  our  imagination  and  is  not 
readily  forgotten.  What  we  owe  to  the  community  as 
a  whole  order  of  relations  forms  the  constant  and 
permanent  substance  of  our  life,  therefore  we  take  it 
for  granted  and  hardly  think  anything  about  it.  We 
know  how  much  some  stirring  sermon  or  serious  talk 
has  meant  in  our  lives  ;  it  seldom  occurs  to  us  how 
much  the  mere  fact  of  a  Church  with  its  fixed  hours  of 
service  is  moulding  and  forming  our  minds. 

This  unconsciousness  of  the  real  influence  and  import- 
ance of  the  community  intensifies,  but  it  does  not 
create,  the  dissonance  between  the  advantage  and 
perfecting  of  the  community  and  those  of  the  indi- 
vidual, which  cannot  be  identified  merely  by  putting 
stress  on  the  true  and  real  advantage  of  the  individual. 
Is  it  possible  to  maintain  that  self-sacrifice  is  always 
really  and  in  the  highest  sense  for  the  good  of  him  who 
sacrifices  himself  ?  If  it  is,  can  the  act  really  and 
in  the  highest  sense  be  a  self-sacrifice  ? 

In  plain  fact,  the  moment  I  set  the  community  before 
me  as  an  object  for  whose  good  I  will  work,  I  have 
separated  myself  from  it.  I  have  so  far  ceased  to 
regard  myself  as  a  member  sharing  in  its  good.  I  have 
made  myself  the  judge  of  what  its  good  shall  be,  and 
asserted  my  individuality  as  the  prior  factor  on  which 
it  is  dependent.  Here  we  may  see  something  of  the 
significance  of  the  difference  between  union  and  unity. 
To  our  self-conscious  judgments  we  are  individuals  who 
make  union  with  one  another  as  we  co-operate  in 
common  plans  and  efforts  for  mutual  assistance.  The 
true  community,  however,  is  the  primary  unity  from 
which  we  receive,  and  this  primar}^  unity  cannot  be  of 
our  making  ;  it  is  of  God. 

We  can  perhaps  follow  this  better  in  an  instance  I 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  57 


have  already  used,  which  is  easier  to  understand  just 
because  it  goes  less  deep  into  the  vital  truth  of  Hfe. 
As  a  nation  we  are  held  together  by  a  common  system, 
having  a  common  history,  a  common  life,  common 
ideals.  We  do  not  belong  to  it  by  a  choice  ol  our  own, 
nor  can  we  quite  easily  cease  to  belong  to  it  by  choice. 
It  is  easy  enough,  no  doubt,  to  be  a  bad  EngHshman  or 
a  traitor,  but  not  so  easy  to  cease  to  be  an  Englishman. 
We  belong  to  England  because  we  have  been  born  to 
a  share  in  a  common  Divine  purpose.  However  far 
back  we  look  we  shall  never  find  such  a  choice  being 
made.  In  the  very  earhest  stages  the  national  idea  or 
the  national  consciousness  is  at  its  feeblest,  in  a  later 
stage  it  has  grown  stronger  ;  but  when  at  its  feeblest  it 
is  a  consciousness,  it  is  a  faith,  at  its  strongest,  it  is  only 
a  strong  consciousness,  and  a  more  over-mastering 
faith,  in  something  which  already  exists. 

Our  faith  in  our  country  is  therefore  a  faith  in  its 
vocation.  It  is  in  this  respect  altogether  different  from 
our  faith  in  the  Primrose  League,  the  Liberal  Five 
Hundred,  or  the  Midland  Railway  Company,  which 
are  our  own,  and  which  represent  just  the  sum  of  such 
combined  effort  and  power  as  we  put  into  them.  A 
nation  is  a  different  thing.  Our  material  self-seeking 
and  intellectual  self-assertion,  our  greed  and  envy, 
contempt  and  recrimination,  weaken  it  and  may  bring 
about  its  destruction.  Our  patriotism,  agreement  and 
sympathy  with  one  another,  willingness  to  understand, 
efficient  work  and  ready  service,  will  be  for  its  strength 
and  development.  But  all  these  activities  for  good  or 
evil  are  the  results  of  our  faith  or  lack  of  faith.  They 
also  strengthen  or  weaken  the  faith,  but  they  are  not 
the  causes  of  faith  and  still  less  the  causes  of  the  nation. 
Our  faith  similarly  pre~supposes  the  country.    It  is  in 


58      THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


the  nature  of  things  impossible  that  faith  should  create 
its  own  object. 

The  nation  is  then  a  trinity  :  first,  that  which  God 
does  ;  next,  faith  by  which  man  accepts  ;  lastly,  works 
by  which  man  fulfils.  We  must  not  divide  these  ele- 
ments, for  all  are  necessary  to  the  very  substance, 
reality,  being  of  a  nation  ;  mutually  re-acting,  they  are 
all  involved  in  ever37thing  we  do.  Yet  we  must  not 
confuse  them,  nor  lose  sight  of  the  order  of  their 
priority.  Possibly  some  may  think  that  I  am  not  justi- 
fied in  making  God  the  author  of  a  national  pohtical 
existence.  I  do  not  altogether  agree  with  them.  We 
cannot  put  political  growth  outside  the  sphere  of  God's 
operation  and  providence  ;  and  so  long  as  we  allow 
that,  my  immediate  point  remains — wherever  we  have 
to  consider  God's  action,  there  we  must  keep  before 
our  minds  this  trinity  of  elements  in  their  right  order. 

The  objection  made  has,  however,  a  certain  import- 
ance. I  admit  that  in  political  matters  there  is  so 
much  which  is  human  that  the  non-religious  student 
has  a  certain  excuse  for  treating  them  by  purely 
scientific  method  as  the  outcome  of  political  forces. 
We  are  concerned  with  the  Church  as  a  Christian 
religious  society,  and  it  is  the  very  essence  of  the 
Christian  religion  that  we  can  see  at  once  in  Christ  that 
which  is  of  God,  in  order  that  what  is  there  made  plain 
to  our  learning  may  be  afterwards  applied  in  fields 
where  God's  action  is  only  *  immanent,'  can  only  be 
seen  in  the  general  working  of  things.  We  believe  God 
to  be  the  author  of  the  nation,  because  we  know  He  is 
the  author  of  the  Church. 

We  look  to  Christ,  then,  as  the  manifestation  of  God 
made  Man  in  order  that  we  may  see  the  Divine  ideal  of 
manhood ;  so  also  we  look  to  God's  Church  to  see 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  59 


the  Divine  ideal  of  a  human  society.  If  Christianity 
has  any  hght  to  throw  on  this  strange  and  perplexing 
dissonance  between  the  individual  and  the  community, 
between  that  essential  unity  from  which  we  come  and 
those  unions  which  are  after  all  our  own,  if  Christianity 
can  show  us  any  way  of  reconciling  or  harmonising  a 
difference  which  penetrates  our  life  so  deeply,  it  is  in 
the  Church  that  it  must  be  found. 

What  I  am  urging  is  therefore  that  according  to  the 
law  of  human  life  the  God-made  unity  is  the  prior 
ground  out  of  which  the  individual  grows  ;  from  the 
individual  come  unions  of  individuals,  for  the  further- 
ance of  special  purposes  or  ideas  apprehended  by 
individuals.  This  individuality,  however,  and  these 
unions  of  individuals  are  not  substitutes  for  that  prior 
unity.  They  must  be  recognised  as  activities  within 
it.  It  is  to  the  prior  and  more  general  unity  that  they, 
as  particulars,  must  be  referred,  just  as  all  our  doings, 
whether  of  persons,  of  parties,  of  societies  for  the  further- 
ance of  some  ideal,  are  parts  of  a  whole  national  life. 
I  must  then  treat  of  the  Church  as  the  standard 
religious  type  of  what  I  am  calling  a  Prior  Unity,  to 
which  all  other  individuals  and  unions  are  related. 

When  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  first  preached  to  men, 
it  was  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand — it  was 
of  a  Kingdom  He  Himself  would  estabhsh,  which  His 
hearers  would  recognise,  might  enter  or  refuse  to  enter, 
but  which  was  certainly  not  to  be  made  by  them.  To 
Pilate  He  asserted  His  claim  to  be  a  King  ;  that  was  the 
end  for  which  He  had  come.  He  died  with  the  title 
of  a  King  above  His  head. 

What  sort  of  a  Kingdom  would  He  establish  ?  It 
was  a  Kingdom  not  of  this  world.  It  was  '  a  Kingdom 
within  you.'    Nevertheless,  like  all  things  spiritual,  it 


6o      THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


would  have  its  actualisation,  its  embodiment  or  presen- 
tation among  men,  as  all  things  eternal  must  have 
which  we  can  count  as  real. 

S.  Luke,  writing  his  history  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  reminds  his  readers  of  his  former  account  of 
all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach.  The 
doings  of  which  he  has  to  tell  them  now  are  all  very 
actual  indeed.  Are  they  not  the  fulfilment  of  Christ's 
promise,  '  Lo,  I  am  with  you  always  '  ?  The  Churches 
to  which  S.  Paul  writes  are  very  real  societies  of  very 
real — it  would  appear  of  very  commonplace — people, 
though  he  takes  them  to  be  the  sign  of  the  operation  of 
God's  Spirit. 

i  The  law  of  the  relation  between  this  presentation  or 
actual  embodiment  and  the  eternal  principle  which 
it  sets  forth,  we  shall  find  in  our  Lord's  great  prayer 
for  unity  given  in  S.  John's  Gospel.  '  That  they  may 
be  one  as  we  are  one.  ...  As  Thou,  Father,  art  in 
Me  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  Us ' 
(xvii.  1 1- 1 2).  The  mystery  that  lies  under  the  unity 
of  the  Church  is  nothing  else  than  the  unity  of  the  God- 
head, the  unity  of  the  Trinity.  It  is  not  primarily  a 
unity  of  opinions,  for  this  is  but  the  unity  of  a  party  ; 
nor  merely  of  co-operation,  for  this  is  only  the  unity 
of  a  commercial  partnership.  It  is  a  unity  of  life,  of 
organic  relation,  of  vital  function. 

There  are  here  two  main  points  on  which  I  want  to 
insist :  (i)  the  distinction  between  the  unity  which  is 
God-made  and  that  which  is  man-made  ;  (2)  the  neces- 
sity of  actuality,  reality,  materiahty,  in  the  nature  of 
this  Church  unity.  Both  of  these  are  points  on  which 
I  know  many  will  differ.  I  put  them  as  crudely,  even 
as  offensively,  as  possible,  much  more  crudely  than  I 
mean  them,  in  order  that  we  may  get  the  whole  force 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  6i 


of  whatever  difference  there  may  be.  I  want  now  to 
explain  them  more  carefully.  I  do  not  suppose  I  shall, 
nor  do  I  want  to,  explain  the  difference  away,  but  I  do 
hope  that  when  others  realise  exactly  what  we  are 
contending  for,  they  will  appreciate  its  importance. 

(i)  That  there  are  certain  societies  which  are  dis- 
tinctively God-made  and  others  which  are  distinctively 
man-made,  I  think  we  shall  all  admit.  No  one  would 
put  a  commercial  firm  quite  on  the  level  of  a  family  or 
a  Church.  What  exactly  is  the  distinction  ?  Should 
we  not  say  that  whatever  we  make  is  a  partnership  ; 
it  has  just  so  much  of  skill  and  wisdom  as  we  put  into 
it.  For  that  reason,  however  useful,  it  cannot  be  an 
object  of  faith  or  of  worship.  If  we  devote  ourselves 
and  bow  down  to  that  which  our  fingers  have  made 
and  our  brains  devised,  as  though  it  were  something 
greater  than  ourselves,  capable  of  bringing  us  help,  we 
are  committing  idolatry. 

But  the  question  is  very  complex.  As  Christians  we 
must  believe  that  all  good  whatever  is  of  God.  Person- 
ally, I  hold  to  the  Augustinian  principle  that  '  man  has 
nothing  of  his  own — unless  perchance  sin.'  If  we  could 
not  feel  that  God  was  leading  us  to  a  business  partner- 
ship, we  have  no  right  to  join  it.  But  if  so,  what 
becomes  of  our  distinction  ?  Must  we  not  conclude 
that  there  is  no  real  distinction,  but  only  a  difference 
of  degree  ? 

If  so,  then  our  question  becomes  not  only  complex, 
but  confused,  for  nothing  is  so  confusing  as  mere 
questions  of  less  and  more.  And  there  are  people  who 
deny  our  distinction,  maintaining  that,  since  the  Holy 
Spirit  dwells  in  us  and  guides  us,  therefore  what  we  do 
is  done  by  God.  From  every  point  of  view  this  is  a 
question  of  supreme  importance  with  which  we  must 


62     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


grapple.  It  will  meet  us  in  this  enquiry  again  and 
again,  but  its  importance  is  by  no  means  limited  to  our 
immediate  subjects. 

I  quite  admit  the  force,  and  even  to  a  certain  point 
the  correctness,  of  the  argument.  There  is  nothing 
good  which  can  be  purely  human  ;  the  phrase  *  man- 
made  '  cannot  therefore  be  used  strictly.  But  can  it 
be  used  distinctively  ?  If  there  is  no  real  distinction 
— except  in  degree — between  what  God  does  and  what 
man  does,  then  I  say  that  all  real  religion  is  at  an  end. 
The  name  of  God  becomes  a  phrase  for  certain  *  degrees  * 
of  man's  actions  and  it  has  no  distinct  meaning  at  all. 

We  must  begin  therefore  by  admitting  that  in  all  man 
does  there  is  an  element  of  divine  guidance.  But  we 
have  learnt  to  realise  that  we  cannot  confine  this 
Divine  guidance  to  Christian  people.  God  gave  of 
His  Spirit  to  heathen  philosophers,  poets,  sculptors. 
To  Him  they  also  owe  whatever  was  right  and  true  in 
their  thoughts  of  God,  and  all  that  was  best  in  the 
beauty  of  its  expression.  Yet  the  primary  distinction 
remains  just  the  same.  However  good,  noble  or 
beautiful,  however  God-given,  these  thoughts,  carvings, 
ideas  were  not  God  Himself  ;  they  were  only  individual 
expressions.  The  distinction  reveals  itself  under  the 
test  of  worship.  The  moment  the  heathen  bowed 
before  that  which  was  contained  within  himself,  or 
proceeded  from  himself — even  if  it  were  that  which  he 
had  received  of  God,  even  if  it  were  so  much  of  God's 
grace — it  was  an  act  of  idolatry. 

That,  as  a  matter  of  plain  fact,  I  do  not  see  how  we 
can  help  admitting,  and  the  ground  of  it  hes  here.  It 
is  as  true  of  Christians  as  heathens,  of  the  greatest 
saints  as  well  as  of  the  most  ordinary  men  and  women, 
that  that  which  is  within  us,  whencesoever  it  may  come, 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH 


63 


is  limited  by  our  limitation,  qualified  by  our  imperfec- 
tion. The  true  object  of  our  worship,  and  therefore  of 
our  faith,  must  be  something  altogether  greater  than 
ourselves.  It  must  be  God  Himself,  and  something 
that  is  of  God's  own  doing,  of  His  purpose,  power, 
working,  as  these  are  in  Himself,  not  according  to  the 
degree  in  which  we  have  received  them.  If  we  believe 
in  England,  it  is  not  in  just  what  Englishmen  are,  not 
even  in  that  grace  which  Englishmen  have  already 
received,  but  in  what  God  means  for  England.  With 
the  Church,  as  with  our  country,  our  faith  is  in  what 
God  has  made  for  it,  not  in  what  men  have  made  of  it. 
We  believe  in  it,  because  we  believe  that  what  God  has 
thus  made  will  overcome  what  man  has  done. 

I  urge,  therefore,  first,  that  if  the  unity  we  seek  is 
to  be  a  Gospel,  or  any  part  of  a  Gospel,  it  must  come  to 
us  as  '  news,'  as  something  which  is  not  of  ourselves, 
but  which  lifts  us  above  ourselves.  It  must  not  be 
the  reflection  or  expression  of  ideas  we  already  have  ; 
it  must  in  some  way  effectively  present,  witness, 
provide  the  means  of  realising  the  revelation  of  God, 
the  operation  of  His  power. 

(2)  From  this  it  follows,  secondly,  that  it  must  be 
a  visible  unity,  an  organised  body,  a  Church  or  institu- 
tion of  some  kind.  I  know  that  very  many  will  dissent 
strongly  from  this  conclusion,  but  I  ask  them  to  face 
the  question  seriously.  'An  invisible  Church  composed 
of  all  good  people,  of  all  who  love  Jesus  Christ  in 
sincerity.'  Is  this  really  more  than  an  empty  phrase  ? 
I  fully  admit  that  there  are  many  good  people  who  do 
not  belong  to  any  religious  body,  nor  do  I  suggest  that 
their  goodness  is  inoperative.  I  only  ask,  if  they  are 
not  a  body — but  only  a  number — and  if  they  do  not 
form  part  of  a  body,  why  should  we  talk  of  them  as 


64      THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


if  they  did  ?  We  can  speak  of  '  the  great  unity  of 
London  bricklayers/  because  the  London  bricklayers 
have  a  Union.  But  what  would  be  meant  by  speaking 
of  '  the  great  unity  of  London  sempstresses  '  ?  It  is 
one  of  the  difficulties  of  social  reform  that  London 
sempstresses  have  no  such  unity.  No  one  knows  even 
who  they  are,  who  should  be  counted  as  a  sempstress 
and  who  not.  *  There  are  many  good  people  known 
and  unknown.'  That  I  fully  grant,  but  what  is  gained, 
what  valid  meaning  is  added,  by  calling  them  *  an 
invisible  Church '  ?  The  phrase  does  suggest  that 
actual  union  among  them  is  a  quite  unimportant 
matter.  I  am  quite  willing  to  admit  that  their  good- 
ness is  more  important,  but  that  experience  of  religious 
life  which  leads  us  to  look  for  reunion  is  of  itself 
proclaiming  that  disunion  is  a  weakness.  By  using 
language  implying  that  the  disunion  does  not  exist,  we 
suggest  that  it  does  not  matter  whether  they  are 
united  or  not. 

The  principle  of  a  visible  Church  stands  in  harmony 
with  the  visible  Incarnation  concerning  which  it  is 
written  *  we  beheld  His  glory.'  If  a  unity  of  mere 
agreement  is  parallel  only  to  a  Tritheistic  Godhead,  an 
invisible  unity  corresponds  to  the  meaningless  rhetoric 
of  Pantheism. 

The  greatest  difficulty  felt  in  a  hearty  acceptance  of 
the  Church  on  earth  as  a  visible  organisation  lies  in  our 
dread  of  losing  what  is  spiritual  under  the  dead-weight 
of  a  merely  material  system.  No  careful  student  of 
history  and  no  observer  of  our  own  times  can  doubt 
that  that  is  a  very  real  and  pressing  danger.  The 
readiness  to  be  content  with  formal  membership  and 
the  correct  performance  of  formal  duties,  the  habit  of 
taking  lists  of  membership  and  classes,  the  weight  of 


THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH 


65 


subscriptions  and  the  magnificence  of  buildings,  as 
signs  of  spiritual  vitality,  or  perhaps,  worst  of  all,  the 
craving  to  exercise  political  power  as  an  equivalent,  a 
proof  or  a  means  of  spiritual  influence,  are  exactly 
parallel  to  the  tendency  to  measure  the  greatness  of 
England  by  the  mileage  of  its  Empire,  the  census  of  its 
population  or  the  estimates  of  its  capital. 

We  must  not  forget,  however,  that  the  spiritual  is 
no  less  endangered  by  our  readiness  to  identify  it  with 
the  unreal,  to  suppose  that  it  can  remain,  or  even 
consist,  in  a  vague  sentiment,  indifferent  to  all  practical 
manifestations.  The  spiritual  is  not  the  opposite  of  the 
material,  but  its  proper  life.  *  There  is  nothing  material 
which  is  not  also  spiritual,  nor  anything  spiritual  which 
is  not  reahsed  in  the  material.' 


E 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  CHURCH  SACRAMENTS. 

I  HAVE  spoken  now  in  a  general  way  of  what  underlies 
our  view  of  '  the  Church/  that  is,  of  the  idea  of  a  unity 
or  whole  to  which  the  individual  is  related.  I  promised 
that  I  would  speak  next  of  the  Church  view  of  Sacra- 
ments, which  I  will  also  treat  in  this  chapter  somewhat 
generally.  These  two  questions  of  Church  Order  and 
Church  Sacraments  have  a  close  connection  with  the 
two  Christian  principles  of  Revelation  and  Atonement. 

The  two  principles  which  I  gave  as  the  essence  of  our 
Christian  faith  are  that  first  it  has  turned  our  thoughts 
away  from  merely  self-formed  ideas  to  contemplate  the 
Revelation  of  God  in  Christ ;  secondly,  in  relation  to 
our  life  it  bids  us  put  our  trust,  not  in  the  virtues, 
righteousness,  actions,  which  we  possess  or  perform,  but 
in  what  Christ  has  done  for  us.  At  Bethlehem  God 
took  all  humanity  to  Himself ;  on  Calvary  He  gave 
Himself  for  all  mankind,  thus  drawing  the  whole  race 
of  man  into  oneness  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  But 
that  which  Christ  did  for  us  is  that  which  He  now  does 
in  us.  As  in  the  Church  we  see  how  there  is  for  the 
individual  a  true  sphere  in  a  common  calling  or  purpose 
of  God  ;  so  in  the  sacraments  Christ  draws  the  indi- 
viduals one  by  one,  making  them  in  baptism  by  His 
act  to  be  His  members,  and  then  feeding  them  day  by 


THE  CHURCH  SACRAMENTS  67 


day  with  that  one  gift  of  God  which  is  the  communion 
of  Himself,  of  His  own  body  and  His  own  blood. 

I  want  to  show  how  throughout  this  statement, 
which  I  have  put  very  shortly,  even  if  some  think 
it  complex,  there  is  but  one  consistent  idea  running. 
We  may  distinguish  between  the  Incarnation  and 
the  Atonement,  Revelation  and  Redemption,  but  the 
Gospel  is  not  divided.  God  redeemed  Humanity  be- 
cause He  had  taken  it,  and  He  took  it  that  He  might 
redeem  it.  To  the  redeemed  God  is  made  known,  and 
He  is  made  known  because  He  redeemed.  So  also 
Order  and  Sacraments  are  one,  for  it  is  One  Will  of 
God  working  outwards  to  men  and  human  society, 
which  works  by  drawing  men  in  to  God.  It  is  thus 
that  Christianity  reconciles  the  dissonance  of  life,  the 
antagonism  between  the  individual  and  the  whole,  for 
though  in  ourselves  we  are  separated  personalities,  in 
God  the  two  are  one. 

The  unity  made  in  the  Gospel  between  the  two  ideas 
of  knowledge  and  power  is  then  repeated  in  the  sacra- 
mental presentation.  What  is  the  relation  between  the 
Gospel  and  the  sacraments  ? 

The  sacraments  were  anciently  called  symbols,  but, 
as  Professor  Harnack  tells  us,  the  word  has  somewhat 
changed  its  meaning.  It  stood  at  first  for  that  out- 
ward form  by  which  an  act  was  validly  performed,  the 
legal  '  deed  '  by  which  ownership,  authority  or  dignity 
is  conferred.  In  the  modern  sense  it  is  used  for  the 
outward  trappings  which  merely  proclaim  what  is 
already  and  by  other  means  possessed,  as  the  crown  is 
the  symbol  of  the  king,  though  he  is  no  less  the  king  if 
no  coronation  has  taken  place. 

To  take  the  sacraments  purely  as  symbols  in  the 
modern  sense,  that  is,  to  regard  them  only  as  material 


68     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


signs  proclaiming  a  subjective  or  spiritual  state  which 
already  exists  independently  of  them,  and  to  which 
they  contribute  nothing,  seems  to  us  to  invert  the 
Christian  order  of  priority.  *  That  is  not  first  which  is 
spiritual  but  that  which  is  natural.'  The  outward  is 
always  the  ground  of  the  inward.  In  common  life  it 
is  from  what  is  seen,  heard,  felt,  that  we  come  to  thought 
and  reflection  ;  in  the  Christian  life,  the  physical, 
objective  presentation  in  Galilee,  Capernaum,  on 
Calvary,  in  the  Upper  Room,  on  Olivet,  comes  before 
the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  By  what  suffered  in  the  flesh, 
we  live  in  the  Spirit. 

The  difficulty  of  the  sacraments  is  the  offence  of  the 
cross,  which  to  the  Jew  was  a  stumbling-block,  for  he 
sought  acts  of  his  own  which  might  have  merit.  To 
the  Greek  it  was  foolishness,  for  virtue  was  the  wisdom 
of  the  individual.  All  our  human  pride  is  in  revolt 
against  the  idea  that  an  external  act,  of  which  we  are 
not  the  doers,  can  affect  us.  Yet  the  sacraments  were 
instituted  as  the  Passion  was  endured  just  for  this 
reason,  that  we  should  learn  to  trust,  as  in  what  Christ 
did,  so  in  what  Christ  gives.  The  subjective  or  personal 
part,  by  which  we  enter  into  or  appreciate,  follows  what 
is  done  or  given. 

Baptism.  These  then  are  the  principles  of  which  I 
want,  not  merely  to  find  illustrations,  but  to  show  the 
spiritual  importance.  That  I  may  not  seem  to  omit 
anything,  I  had  better  say  a  few  words  on  the  subject 
of  Baptism. 

The  Christian  life  is  that  life  in  which  we  dwell  in 
Christ  and  Christ  in  us,  are  one  with  Christ  and  Christ 
with  us.  This  state  is  so  far  natural,  since  it  is  that 
for  which  our  nature  cries  out.  Yet  in  another  sense 
it  is  not  natural,  but  of  grace,  that  is  of  gift.  The 


THE  CHURCH  SACRAMENTS  69 


merely  natural  mind,  the  mind  of  the  flesh,  '  is  not 
subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be  '  (Rom. 
viii.  7).  The  natural  mind  is  that  which  is  self-regard- 
ing, for  '  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,'  so  that 
'  except  a  man  be  bom  again — of  water  and  spirit — 
he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God/ 

By  birth  we  mean  the  beginning  of  individual  life ; 
by  life  we  very  commonly  mean  the  sum  and  course 
of  all  those  activities — sights,  hearing,  knowledge, 
thought,  movement — which  go  to  make  up  the  fact  of 
living.  Strictly  speaking,  however,  life  is  rather  the 
power  which  makes  those  activities  possible.  Without 
the  activities  life  perishes,  but  life's  uses  and  the  power 
of  life  are  nevertheless  distinct.  The  uses  presuppose 
the  power. 

When  therefore  our  Lord  commanded  His  Apostles 
to  baptise,  He  gave  baptism  to  be  the  sacrament  of  a 
birth,  the  symbol,  the  outward  means,  the  effective 
presentment  of  the  gift  of  life  ;  of  life,  that  is,  taken 
strictly,  a  power,  not  the  fulfilment  to  which  it  leads. 
'As  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  power  to 
become  the  sons  of  God.'  The  same  order  of  priority 
holds  in  the  spiritual  as  in  the  physical.  We  do  not 
acquire  sonship  by  love  ;  we  learn  to  love  because  we 
have  been  made  sons. 

Holy  Communion.  It  has  been  a  frequent  subject  of 
regret,  it  has  been  not  seldom  referred  to  as  an  instance 
of  human  perversity,  that  the  mystery  of  this  sacra- 
ment, ordained  to  be  the  means  and  symbol  of  unity 
among  men,  should  have  become  the  greatest  cause  of 
religious  difference.  But  the  complaint  thus  stated 
involves  a  very  serious  misunderstanding  of  the  problem 
before  us.  Men  differ,  not  because  they  are  trying  to 
know  too  much,  but  because  they  have  not  learnt 


70     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


enough.  God  Himself  is  using  difference  to  rouse  us  to 
the  sense  of  how  much  more  there  is  yet  to  come,  to 
prevent  us  settHng  down  to  the  easy  sleep  of  in- 
difference. If  the  differences  become  quarrels  it  is  not 
because  we  hold  truth  with  too  firm  a  conviction,  but 
because  we  resent  the  idea  that  there  is  anything  more 
to  be  learnt.  We  do  well  to  deplore  difference  and  still 
more  to  deplore  bitterness.  But  after  all  these  are 
only  symptoms. 

If  there  is  any  truth  in  this  view  of  the  significance 
of  difference — and  I  think  few  will  deny  that  there  is 
at  least  some — the  more  essential  any  question  is,  the 
greater  the  hold  it  takes  on  life,  if  men  differ  about 
anything  the  more  they  will  differ  about  that  and  the 
more  inevitably. 

I  have  already  pointed  out  how  this  applies  to 
religion  in  general.  We  need  not  go  to  theologians  and 
philosophers ;  our  best  witnesses  are  the  practical 
politicians  who  are  least  interested  in  the  subject.  From 
at  least  the  days  of  the  Seleucidae  and  the  Maccabaean 
revolt,  they  have  shown  their  consciousness  that 
religion  was  the  most  effective  element  in  uniting  and 
in  dividing  the  people  under  them.  The  two  effects 
were  mutually  involved. 

What  applies  to  religion  in  general  applies  equally 
to  religious  doctrines  taken  separately.  The  Doctrine 
of  the  Atonement  is  full  of  difficulties.  Endless  theories 
have  been  made  about  it.  Even  those  who  have  made 
the  theories  would  not  pretend  that  any  of  them  were 
adequate.  In  the  Atonement  is  the  answer  of  God  to 
all  the  mysteries,  the  perplexities,  the  contradictions  in 
human  life.  To  understand  it  completely  would  be  to 
have  a  complete  understanding  of  everything.  And 
the  mystery  of  the  Holy  Communion  is  nothing  more 


THE  CHURCH  SACRAMENTS  71 


than  a  showing  forth  of  Christ's  death  in  a  relation  to 
all  men. 

It  seems  a  paradox  to  say  that  these  things  contain 
the  answer  to  all  the  perplexities  and  yet  that  they  are 
not  intelligible.  If  we  meant  a  verbal  answer,  certainly 
it  would  be  a  very  stupid  paradox,  but  I  am  speaking 
of  a  living  answer.  I  might  say  that  the  answer  to  all 
our  sociological  problems  lay  in  the  family,  but  no  one 
would  understand  me  to  mean  that  the  family  was  a 
lucid  scientific  treatise.  I  should  mean  that  those 
elements  and  principles  which  in  our  national  life  are 
so  fragmentary,  so  disjointed,  so  incongruous,  so  hard 
to  follow,  are  in  the  family  harmonious,  possible, 
reconciled  in  practice.  The  family  at  least  is  the 
solution,  though  we  may  be  a  long  way  off  knowing 
either  how  to  explain  its  answer  in  intellectual  terms 
or  how  to  use  it  practically  to  straighten  out  our 
difficulties. 

Let  us  see  what  these  *  problems  of  life  '  are,  and  if 
they  sound  somewhat  abstract,  I  give  them  in  the 
belief  that  they  lie  at  the  root  of  aU  our  most  real 
troubles.  Is  there  such  a  thing  as  a  divine  gift,  or  a 
*  divine  grace,'  or  can  everything  in  our  moral  and 
intellectual  life  be  accounted  for  on  the  combined  basis 
of  environment,  psychological  development  and  free 
will  ?  What  precisely  is  the  meaning  and  office  of 
faith,  submission,  humility,  self -surrender,  by  which 
that  gift  or  grace  is  accepted  ?  What  is  the  value, 
place,  effect,  of  human  activity  ?  What  is  the  right 
order,  sequence,  or  relation  of  these  three  factors — 
gift,  faith,  works  ?  How  do  they  act  on  one  another, 
and  how  much  reaction  must  we  allow  for  ? 

Again,  how  is  the  individual  related  to  the  com- 
munity, and  in  what  order  does  each  stand  to  God  ? 


72     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Does  the  community  exist  for  the  members  or  the 
members  for  the  community  ?  Are  God's  gifts  received 
by  the  community  and  ministered  to  the  members,  or 
received  by  the  members  that  they  may  be  used  as 
a  gift  to  others  ?  If  both  ways  are  employed,  is  there 
any  distinction  between  them  ? 

What  are  the  relations  of  the  spiritual  and  intellectual 
soul  to  the  world  ?  If  the  material  hampers,  can  it 
also  minister  to,  the  soul  ?  Is  God  the  Lord  of  the 
spiritual  only,  or  of  the  material  also  ?  Is  God  im- 
manent in  nature,  that  is,  are  we  to  find  Him  in  the 
normal  operation  of  its  known  forces  ;  or  is  He  tran- 
scendent, a  something  acting  upon  nature  from  with- 
out ?  Or  is  He  both  immanent  and  transcendent  ?  Is 
He  immanent  or  transcendent  in  the  spiritual  life,  a 
force — or  perhaps  the  force — of  natural  psychological 
movement,  or  again  is  He  to  be  traced  in  the  super- 
natural ? 

There  are  many  ways  of  meeting  these  questions. 
We  may  assert  that  life  is  an  essentially  simple  thing, 
and  that  its  so-called  problems  are  the  nightmare  in- 
vention of  philosophers  and  theologians.  So  Tertul- 
lian  once  described  them  as  coming  from  the  wretched 
Aristotle — turned  and  twisted  by  philosophers  and 
heretics.  We  may  also,  with  an  easy-going  agnosticism, 
admit  that  they  exist,  and  yet  scoff  at  the  futility  of 
discussing  what  we  have  no  means  to  answer. 

If,  however,  we  reaHse  that  these  questions  are  being 
forced  upon  us  in  everyday  life,  then  we  ought  to 
welcome  anything  which  will  help  to  make  the  end  and 
purpose  of  that  life  more  clear.  The  mere  formulating 
of  the  questions,  the  mere  statement  of  our  confusions, 
is  a  first  and  necessary  step  forward.  It  is  part  of  a 
criticism  I  have  ventured  to  make  elsewhere  on  the 


THE  CHURCH  SACRAMENTS  73 


method  of  modern  theological  study  that,  while  wrest- 
ling not  uselessly  with  documentary  sources  and  histori- 
cal origins,  it  has  failed  to  recognise  that  '  orthodox 
doctrine  '  and  ecclesiastical  systems  are  not  concerned 
merely  with  religious  phenomena  and  ideas.  They  are 
offering  us  a  solution  of  life  as  a  whole.  In  consequence, 
our  modem  constructive  theology  shows  for  the  most 
part  a  very  superficial  appreciation  of  the  depth  and 
subtlety  of  the  questions  involved. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION. 

1  TRUST  that  this  general  account  of  the  sacramental 
system  of  the  Church  will  justify  my  taking  the  Holy 
Communion  and  the  place  it  holds  in  our  religious  life 
as  the  most  central  expression  of  whatever  other 
differences  exist  between  us.  By  careful  examination 
here  we  can  gain  the  clearest  conception  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  our  differences,  and  of  what  is  implied  in 
them. 

The  examination  will  be  necessarily  somewhat  com- 
plicated. I  am  sure  we  do  not  understand  one  another 
very  well ;  I  am  very  doubtful  if  we  understand  our- 
selves at  all  too  clearly.  If  there  is  any  importance  in 
what  I  have  said  above  on  the  need  of  close  consistency 
between  faith  and  religious  practice,  I  would  urge  then 
that  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  we  should 
work  out  our  meaning  steadily.  For  reunion  mutual 
understanding  is  necessary,  and  for  that  understanding 
we  must  both  make  sure  that  we  have  a  consistent 
position  which  can  be  understood.  Further,  I  would 
urge  that  consistency  of  meaning  is  no  less  necessary 
for  ourselves.  In  a  matter  which  so  much  concerns 
the  truth  of  Christianity  we  cannot  afford,  and  we  ought 
not  to  be  content,  to  play  about  between  two  alterna- 
tives, using  one  so  long  as  it  suits  us  and  then  tacitly 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


75 


passing  over  to  another  whenever  the  consequences  of 
the  first  begin  to  grip  us  inconveniently. 

In  practice  we  differ  very  widely,  though  in  faith 
many  of  us  at  least  are  still  deeply  at  one.  If  we  laid 
ourselves  out  to  do  it,  I  dare  say  we  might  find  paper 
phrases  to  which  we  could  all  give  a  formal  assent, 
while  in  fact  we  remain  just  where  we  were.  But  is 
that  worth  doing  ?  Is  it  right  ?  Would  it  not  be 
really  wiser  to  begin  by  trying  to  sharpen  our  differ- 
ences ?  *  We  have  done  that  only  too  often.'  Yes, 
we  have  done  it  in  the  name  of  strife  and  controversy, 
should  we  not  be  equally  bold  and  frank  in  the 
name  of  love  to  one  another,  because  of  the  faith 
we  have  in  God's  purpose  ?  In  this  spirit,  would 
there  not  be  then  a  real  hope  of  knowing  where  we 
stood  ? 

In  discussing  our  respective  positions  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapters  I  called  that  for  which  I  was  contend- 
ing the  '  Church '  position.  I  was  conscious  in  doing 
so  that  I  was  implying  a  claim  which  would  not  be 
altogether  admitted,  yet  since  I  was  explaining  an 
essentially  *  institutional  '  view  I  thought  the  use  of 
the  term  sufiiciently  clear  and  for  descriptive  purposes 
not  unjustifiable.  Now  that  I  am  coming  to  treat  of  the 
personal  side,  the  term  would  be  for  several  reasons 
misleading.  To  find  descriptive  names  acceptable  to 
both  parties  is  in  all  controversies  a  difficult  task.  I 
have  heard  the  two  main  views  on  this  subject  classified 
as  Catholic  and  Evangelical.  I  should  have  no  objec- 
tion to  the  term  Cathohc,  but  I  cannot  without  protest 
consent  to  let  go  the  term  Evangelical.  I  have  no 
other  motive  for  maintaining  the  '  Catholic  '  sacra- 
mental doctrine  than  that  I  believe  it  to  be  necessary 
to  the  consistency  and  stability  of  Evangelicalism.  If 


76     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


I  may  be  allowed  a  purely  personal  remark,  I  say  this 
as  one  who  began  life  as  an  ardent  evangelical  in  the 
sense  in  which  that  term  might  be  applied  to  any 
Salvation  Army  Captain,  and,  however  much  more  I 
have  learnt  since,  I  would  not  admit  I  have  ever 
abandoned  my  belief.  Possibly  then  I  may  be  allowed 
to  use  the  term  '  Protestant '  as  that  to  which  the 
fewest  objections  will  be  made. 

What  then  may  be  called  the  '  CathoHc  '  position,  I 
may  undertake  to  set  out  shortly.  We  believe  that  in 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Holy  Communion,  Christ  has 
provided  for  us  in  the  fulfilment  of  His  promise  a  re- 
presentation of  Himself,  a  true  renewal  to  us  day  by 
day  of  the  Bodily  Presence  of  His  spiritual  Humanity, 
that  which  suffered  and  is  now  ascended  and  glorified, 
in  order  that  we,  partaking  of  the  Humanity  thus  given, 
might  enter  into  that  union  of  the  earthly  and  spiritual 
which  was  the  redemption  manifested  in  the  Body  of 
His  Resurrection. 

It  is  a  much  more  difficult  matter  to  undertake  to 
state  the  position  one  is  about  to  criticise.  The  recog- 
nised scientific  method  is  by  quoting  and  analysing  the 
statements  given  in  authorised  documents  and  by 
authoritative  writers.  Although  this  looks  the  fairest 
method,  I  shrink  from  it.  It  is  a  very  wearisome  pro- 
cedure both  for  the  wi'iter  and  the  reader.  Since  the 
quotations  can  only  be  extracts,  and  after  all  one  has 
to  put  an  interpretation  on  them,  the  danger  of  mis- 
representation is  rather  increased  than  diminished  by 
the  appearance  of  exactitude.  The  results  are  also 
apt  to  be  misleading.  Authoritative  writers  give  us 
the  more  intellectual  view  of  a  system,  as  it  can  be 
best  thought  out,  sometimes  as  it  can  be  most  easily 
defended,  which  is  often  a  long  way  from  its  actual  use. 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


77 


Authorised  documents,  as  essentially  formal,  do  not 
give  us  any  view  of  the  movement  of  thought. 

These  objections  are  of  especial  weight  in  dealing 
with  Non-Conformity.  The  leading  writers  of  one  body 
are  not  those  of  another,  while  I  believe  I  am  right  in 
saying  that  modern  Non-Conformity  would  claim  to  be 
essentially  rather  a  spirit  or  movement  than  a  formal 
position  which  can  be  adequately  embodied  in  author- 
ised documents. 

It  is  therefore  a  distinctive  spirit  or  motive  which 
I  have  to  consider.  If  in  this  way  we  try  to  describe 
the  character  of  the  two  attitudes,  it  is  usual  to  say 
that  while  the  '  CathoHc  '  looks  especially  to  what  is 
common,  to  the  formal  action,  and  ultimately  to  the 
definite  doctrine  or  thought,  the  '  Protestant '  tendency 
is  to  look  primarily  to  the  personal  or  individual,  to 
the  spiritual,  and  ultimately  to  what  is  felt.  It  is 
admitted  on  both  sides  that  the  distinction  lies  in  a 
difference  of  proportion,  or  of  relative  importance.  The 
Catholic  does  not  deny  the  importance  of  the  personal, 
nor  the  Protestant  of  that  which  is  common.  Moderate 
men  on  both  sides  would  admit  that  these  distinctions 
imply  dangers  in  their  own  position  as  well  as  powers. 

When  we  come  to  an  explicit  question  like  that  of 
the  Holy  Communion,  we  find  that  our  differences  are 
far  more  serious,  imply  matters  of  much  more  spiritual 
importance,  than  the  somewhat  vague  admissions  given 
above  would  suggest.  In  trying  to  state  the  Protestant 
view,  I  am  a  little  puzzled  by  finding  two  answers, 
advanced  generally  by  different  people,  but  even  some- 
times by  the  same  people  at  different  times,  without 
any  apparent  sense  that  they  are  not  quite  consistent. 
I  do  not  wish  to  make  controversial  point  out  of  this. 
We  Catholics  have  enough  inconsistencies  of  our  own, 


78     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


and  Non-Conformists  lay  less  stress  on  formal  con- 
sistency than  we  do.  But  I  still  hold  that  for  either  of 
us  the  lack  of  a  clear  conception,  the  readiness  to  take 
first  one  and  then  another  view,  is  a  real  evil.  For  my 
immediate  purpose,  however,  it  is  rather  a  convenience. 
The  two  answers  move  somewhat  different  issues  which 
need  separate  consideration.  I  will  take  the  first  here, 
and  leave  the  second  to  my  next  chapter. 

What  I  might  call  '  the  extreme  Protestant  view  ' — 
though  it  is  by  no  means  confined  to  those  who  in  any 
offensive  way  would  be  called  extreme  Protestants, — 
regards  the  Holy  Communion  as  *  symbolical '  in  the 
modern  sense  of  the  word.  It  is  a  token  or  reminder 
of  what  is  given,  but  it  is  only  the  most  effective  means 
of  that  gift  in  so  far  as  by  its  associations  it  is  the  most 
solemn  act  of  prayer,  meditation  and  worship.  If 
there  is  a  difference  between  communion  and  other 
religious  acts,  it  is  of  degree  and  not  of  kind.  The  real 
key  of  the  view  is  stated  with  extraordinary  terseness 
and  suggestiveness  in  the  sentence  :  *  What  a  man 
brings  to  the  communion,  he  takes  from  it.* 

If  anything  I  can  say  is  to  be  of  any  use,  I  must 
avoid  unfair  statement  of  the  opposed  view.  I  have 
already  admitted  that  this  only  represents  one  view, 
or  perhaps  one  side.  It  may  well  be  that  I  do  not  fully 
understand  what  is  meant  by  it,  but  I  want  to  empha- 
sise what  I  hope  presently  to  show  more  fully.  I  am 
not  criticising  Protestantism,  still  less  Non-Conformity, 
but  only  certain  elements  which  in  truth  seem  to  me 
not  essential  nor  even  consistent  with  the  principles  of 
either,  but  which  are  rather,  hke  most  negations,  a 
source  of  weakness. 

That  the  above  statement  does  represent  a  very  real 
side  of  the  Protestant  position  I  think  I  have  better 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


79 


evidence  for  believing  than  any  string  of  quotations. 
I  have  explained  elsewhere  why  I  take  religious  usage 
as  the  most  significant  expression  of  the  religious  mind. 
Usage  grows  up  in  us  and  moulds  our  minds  uncon- 
sciously. If  we  will  reflect  upon  it,  it  thereby  reveals 
to  us  how  different  the  real  influences  in  our  Hfe  may 
be  from  those  which  our  theories  are  inclined  to  allow. 
Again,  usages  are  essentially  '  common.'  They  reveal 
the  outcome  and  the  meaning  of  a  system  as  it  is  under- 
stood by  the  mass  of  common  people,  rather  than  as 
it  is  explained  by  the  learned. 

Whatever  similarity  therefore  may  exist  between  the 
theories  of  different  bodies  of  Christians,  we  must  find 
some  explanation  or  interpretation  for  this  great  and 
practical  difference  that,  just  so  far  as  the  Catholic 
view  has  been  appreciated,  the  Holy  Communion  has 
been  felt  as  the  centre  of  its  normal  religious  life,  set 
forth  day  by  day  or  week  by  week  ;  amongst  Non- 
Conformists  and  under  the  Protestant  view,  it  is  very 
occasional,  and,  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  the  modern 
tendency  is  to  diminish  the  insistence  on  its  necessity. 

I  am  not  merely  anxious  for  controversial  reasons  to 
do  full  justice  to  Non-Conformists.  I  am  exceedingly 
anxious  for  the  cause  of  Christianity  that  we  should 
gain  a  strictly  accurate  view  both  of  the  nature  of  our 
differences  and  of  their  importance  It  is  quite  possible 
that  they  are  of  small  moment,  but  it  is  also  possible 
that  the  differences  may  be  growing  out  of  and  reveal- 
ing very  serious  defects  and  inconsistencies  on  one  side 
or  on  both  which  ought  to  be  faced  honestly.  A  better 
understanding  of  one  another  is  desirable,  but  a  true 
understanding  of  Christianity  is  vital.  In  the  one  case, 
to  exaggerate  our  differences  is  foolish  and  mischievous  ; 
in  the  other,  to  minimise  them  may  be  disastrous. 


8o     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


I  have  put  the  two  positions  side  by  side  and  the 
difference  between  them  is  obvious.  When,  however, 
in  a  broad-minded  way  we  look  to  the  spirit  or  tendency 
of  the  systems,  differences  of  theory  or  statement  seem 
to  melt  away  again.  When  we  look  at  the  practical 
differences  of  use,  those  tendencies  begin  to  acquire  a 
deeper  significance,  which  is  increased  and  confirmed 
by  the  reasons  quite  commonly  given  by  Protestants 
for  dissenting  from  the  Catholic  usage.  I  put  these 
reasons  in  my  own  words,  but  I  put  them  as  strongly  as 
I  can. 

'  The  more  we  concentrate  our  attention  on  the 
inward  and  spiritual  life  of  the  soul  which  is  after  aJl 
the  vital  element,  and  the  more  we  realise  the  mystery 
of  that  personal  devotion  or  self-surrender  which  consti- 
tutes the  soul's  true  relation  to  God,  the  less  easy  it  is 
to  believe  that  it  can  be  compassed  by  what  is  formal 
and  material,  by  an  act  which — without  any  wish  to 
be  offensive — it  is  difficult  not  to  call  "  quasi-magical." 
The  act  may  be  helpful.  It  may  stimulate  devotion ; 
it  provides  an  expression  for  its  realisation,  but  it  is 
the  devotion  which  gives  the  act  its  whole  value.  And 
for  this  view  there  is  some  psychological  justification. 
Do  we  observe,  have  we  any  ground  for  supposing,  that 
real  spiritual  results  do  follow  from  the  mere  act  ?  * 

Alongside  of  this  I  would  set  an  obvious  Catholic 
reply.  *  It  is  easy  enough  to  call  the  act  of  communion 
formal,  quasi-magical  and  ineffective.  We  have  for  it 
the  scriptural  authority  of  Christ's  promise  and 
command.  We  cannot  tell  whence  the  Spirit  cometh 
and  whither  it  goeth.  It  is  absurd  and  profane  to 
imagine  that  our  psychological  thumb  can  plot  off  the 
mysterious  working  of  the  Divine  power  in  the  human 
soul.' 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


8i 


I  have  put  the  Protestant  position  I  hope  fairly,  and 
I  think  pointedly.  For  my  own  part  I  realise  the 
extreme  importance  of  its  contentions.  I  ask  Non- 
Conformists  to  consider  very  carefully  the  importance 
of  what  IS  implied  in  the  particular  Catholic  argument 
just  stated.  I  have  the  more  right  to  do  so,  because 
putting  it  also  in  its  most  pointed  form,  I  have  not 
troubled  to  be  fair  at  all.  It  is  not  a  form  which 
naturally  appeals  to  me,  nor  which  I  think  satisfactory. 
In  dealing  with  any  rehgious  practice,  whether  it  be 
sacraments  or  prayer  or  any  other,  though  we  cannot 
pretend  to  trace  results  exactly,  we  ought  not  to  escape 
from  the  question  of  actual  working  by  invoking 
authority  and  *  the  unknowable.'  Unquestionably  the 
Protestant  and  Catholic  arguments  in  this  shape  stand 
in  irreconcilable  antagonism.  It  is  utterly  useless  to 
try  to  make  a  compromise  between  their  conclusions. 
Both  arguments  and  conclusions  rest  upon  entirely 
different  premisses.  If  we  are  to  get  any  further  it  is 
the  premisses  we  must  study. 

The  outstanding  feature  of  the  Protestant  position  is 
its  assertion  of  the  purity  and  continuity  of  the  spiritual 
life.  We  may  trace  this  in  all  the  three  forms  in  which 
I  have  dealt  with  it.  The  Protestant  view  is  centred  on 
the  spiritual  life  ;  its  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Communion 
proclaims  the  dominance  of  the  spiritual  over  the 
material ;  its  argument  insists  that  the  mere  act  takes 
its  value  from  the  intention,  purpose,  feeling,  which 
motive  it,  and  protests  against  the  inversion  of  that 
order.  The  outstanding  feature  of  the  Catholic  position 
is  very  different.  It  asserts  the  vital  importance  of 
something  done,  which  it  would  not  admit  was  un- 
spiritual,  but  which  is  at  least  external  and  independent 
of  the  spiritual  state. 

F 


iS2     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Certainly  these  premisses  imply  a  very  different  view 
of  the  questions  or  factors  to  be  dealt  with,  but  does  it 
follow  that  they  are  opposed  ?  May  it  not  be  that 
these  are  two  questions,  and  that  we  are  each  thinking 
of  one  when  we  very  much  need  to  think  of  both  ?  If 
we  realised  that,  might  we  not  find  that  the  arguments 
differed  because  they  related  to  different  spheres,  and 
consequently  the  conclusions  no  longer  clashed  ?  Now 
is  it  not  evident  at  this  stage  that  *  the  material  act ' 
upon  the  value  of  which  the  discussion  turns  has  a  quite 
different  meaning  in  the  two  positions  ?  The  Protes- 
tant is  talking  of  the  value  of  an  act  which  we  perform  ; 
the  Catholic  is  thinking  of  the  value  of  something 
performed  in  us  or  for  us. 

This  may  seem  a  small  point.  I  believe  it  leads 
directly  to  the  heart  of  what  is  at  stake,  and  that  our 
confusion  over  it  has  involved  us  in  a  disastrous  con- 
flict just  where  we  were  in  need  of  one  another's  help. 
I  ask  once  more  for  patience  and  sympathetic  con- 
sideration while  urging  what  I  think  are  the  weaknesses 
of  the  Protestant  position.  I  will  be  as  frank  as  I  can 
over  our  own  weaknesses  in  my  Second  Part. 

We  are  all  to-day  trembling  on  the  edge  of  a  humani- 
tarian naturalism.  It  is  not  merely  in  the  study  that 
this  question  :  '  Does  the  Name  of  God  mean  any- 
thing ?  '  is  dogging  all  our  steps,  twisting  itself  about 
our  feet,  staring  at  us  out  ol  the  dark,  freezing  our 
heart,  paralysing  our  movements,  crushing  us  with  the 
sense  of  an  appaDing  loneliness,  like  the  snow  wraiths 
to  one  lost  in  a  moorland  storm.  Of  old  time,  when 
men  were  ready  to  believe  anything  a  miracle,  we 
imagine — though  I  doubt  if  we  are  altogether  justified 
— (cf.  2  S.  Peter  iii.  4) — that  the  difficulty  was  far  less 
acutely  felt.    In  our  own  time,  overw^helmed  by  the 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


83 


sense  of  a  uniform  natural  law,  we  have  been  half 
forced,  half  led,  to  the  behef  in  God's  immanence  in  all 
things,  as  their  life  and  power,  movement  and  force, 
and  in  the  steadfastness  of  His  will  as  the  ground  of 
their  order.  We  might  accept  for  ourselves  the  view 
of  S.  Ambrose  :  the  earth  stands  '  not  because  it  is  in 
the  middle,  as  suspended  on  an  even  balance,  but  it 
continues  stable  because  the  majesty  of  God  constrains 
it  by  the  law  of  His  will '  (Hex.  i.  6).  As  we  have  learnt 
to  trace  law  also  in  our  own  mind-movements,  we  have 
learnt  that  there  also  are  His  operations.  In  these 
thoughts  we  try  to  take  refuge. 

All  this  is  so  far  pure  gain.  But  is  this  the  whole  ? 
Is  there  no  element  in  nature  other  than  a  closed  circle 
of  mechanical  energy  ?  Supposing  we  could  trace  all 
the  complex  workings  of  our  mind,  should  we  find  there 
nothing  but  psychological  movement  and  environment  ? 
Is  there  no  force  in  nature  without  or  in  personality 
within,  penetrating  and  moulding,  yet  not  a  product  of, 
nature  or  personality — something  we  can  call  Divine 
grace  and  act  ?  If  we  answer  that  in  the  negative,  is 
God  anything  more  than  a  name  for  the  bigness  and 
quantity  of  things  taken  generally,  or,  if  taken  selec- 
tively, then  for  the  '  nice '  side  of  things  ?  Mr. 
Blatchford  said  of  an  eminent  preacher,  *  he  is  called 
a  minister  of  the  Gospel  and  I  am  called  an  atheist, 
but  the  only  difference  is  that  he  calls  nature  God, 
and  I  call  nature  Nature.' 

This  is  not,  so  far,  a  controversial  question.  Catholics 
and  Protestants,  Churchmen  and  Non-Conformists,  by 
whatever  name  we  call  ourselves  or  one  another,  here 
stand  side  by  side,  hand  in  hand,  heart  with  heart, 
conscious  of  its  pressure  and  alive  to  the  necessity  of 
meeting  it.    It  would  be  useless  to  talk  about  union 


84     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


unless  there  were  a  common  faith  in  God  and  Christ 
where  we  were  already  united.  I  put  then  three  points 
as  forming  that  common  Christian  ground  which  I 
trust  I  may  assume. 

(t)  While  we  recognise  God  as  operating  in  all  things, 
we  cannot  identify  God  with  His  operations,  neither 
severally  nor  as  a  whole.  Nor  can  we  identify  God 
with  our  own  psychological  experiences.  By  God  we 
mean  something  altogether  greater  than  nature,  whether 
physical  or  psychical,  material  or  human.  We  attach 
the  Name  primarily  to  this  transcendent  Reality — not 
to  that  which  nature  is,  but  to  Him  who  is  its  Lord, 
its  Author  and  its  Ruler. 

(2)  While  therefore  we  rejoice  to  trace  God's  work  in 
nature,  we  recognise  how  impossible  it  is  for  man,  by 
means  of  inference  from  actual  experience  and  within 
the  limitations  of  his  capacity,  to  reach  to  the  knowledge 
of  God  Himself.  To  believe  in  and  to  worship  a  con- 
ception formed  by  our  own  reflection,  the  product  of 
our  yearnings,  needs,  experiences,  imaginings,  would  be 
an  idolatry  of  nature  or  an  idolatry  of  man. 

(3)  From  this  darkness  of  heathenism,  from  what  is 
purely  natural  and  human,  a  way  of  escape  which  we 
could  neither  find  nor  make  has  been  given  to  us  through 
the  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Only-Begotten  Son 
of  God.  It  is  not  that  we  cease  to  think  of  God  as 
Immanent.  Rather  we  can  now  do  so  with  some  real 
meaning,  since  the  objective  '  here,'  *  this,'  *  now '  of 
the  Manifestation  of  God  in  the  Incarnation  has  re- 
deemed and  vitalised  the  abstract  notions  inferred  from 
mere  general  operations.  It  is  not  that  we  cease  to 
believe  in  God  within  us,  for  it  is  through  the  Incarna- 
tion, Passion,  Resurrection  and  Ascension  of  Christ, 
through  the  union  between  God  and  man  there  estab- 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


85 


lished,  that  the  indwelling  Spirit  comes  to  us,  not  merely 
as  a  name  for  states  and  operations  of  our  own,  but  as 
a  true  gift,  supernatural,  miraculous,  lifting  our  minds 
in  thought  and  purpose  above  the  self-consideration 
and  self-choice  which  are  natural  to  them. 

In  this  setting  out  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  can  we  not  see  some  reconciliation  of  the 
two  opposed  ideas  of  the  value  of  an  '  external  act,' 
and  the  two  different  senses  in  which  we  take  it  ?  Do 
we  not  begin  to  see  that  if  the  act  is  only  something 
we  do,  it  is  meaningless  apart  from  the  internal  purpose 
which  inspired  it,  and  yet  that  that  internal  purpose 
must  be  first  of  all  the  acceptance  of  an  external  act 
which  is  done  for  us.  As  an  eminent  Free  Church 
leader  has  expressed  it,  the  New  Testament '  is  inspired 
by  the  conviction,  not  simply  that  something  new  has 
been  discovered,  but  that  something  new  has  happened.' 

If  we  are  at  all  so  far  agreed  in  our  faith,  as  a  faith 
in  Christ  which  can  lift  us  out  of  mere  faith  in  ourselves, 
the  only  point  of  difference  lies  as  to  the  means  of  its 
present  realisation  or  appropriation.  But  here  comes 
a  question  of  pressing  importance.  Is  this  presentation 
of  the  reality  of  God  in  Christ  more  than  a  past  history  ? 
God  a  long  while  ago  thus  came  to  men,  but  what  about 
ourselves  to-day  in  our  own  daily  life  ?  Two  obvious 
replies  suggest  themselves. 

(a)  '  If  Christ  has  gone  up  on  high,  we  must  not 
think  of  heaven  as  some  distant  place.  If  we  have 
learnt  to  know  Christ  after  the  flesh  we  must  now  learn 
to  see  Him  in  all  around  us,  to  serve  Him  in  the  least 
of  our  brethren  and  His.  In  every  judgment  of  the 
nations,  we  must  behold  the  Son  of  Man  coming  in 
the  clouds.' 

I  do  not  in  the  least  question  the  truth  and  value, 


86      THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


but  only  the  sufficiency,  of  this  reply.  If  this  is  all 
that  can  be  said,  then  our  present  religious  practice 
seems  to  have  reverted  to  the  essentially  heathen 
principle.  I  do  not  use  that  word  in  an  offensive  sense. 
At  its  very  best  heathenism  fails,  not  in  what  it  does, 
but  in  its  attempt  to  treat  man's  own  doings,  his  own 
acts  and  his  own  natural  course  of  thought  as  sufficient. 
In  the  absence  of  a  Revelation  it  could  not  help  doing  so. 

The  heathen  see  God,  and  we  are  bidden  to  see  Christ, 
in  His  operations,  in  the  beauty,  power,  goodness  of 
that  which  He  works  in  us  or  others.  But  that 
operation  is  not  Himself.  The  test  of  '  God  Himself  * 
is  the  test  of  worship.  Here  is  the  beauty  of  the  sun, 
and  here  of  the  Christ-like  life.  Rightly  we  see  God  and 
His  Christ  in  them,  but  only  by  abstraction.  We  may 
not  identify  them.  We  may  not  worship  the  sun,  nor 
even  the  best  of  men. 

{b)  This  Vision  of  Christ  reigning  is  not  however 
offered  as  sufficient.  A  further  answer,  more  truly 
Christian,  is  that — '  for  Christ  Himself  we  must  go  back 
to  that  Divinely  given  revelation  of  Himself  in  His  own 
Word.  We  must  hear  His  voice  speaking  to  Peter, 
wrestling  with  the  Pharisees  and  doctors  ;  we  must 
commune  with  Him  in  our  heart  as  He  once  taught  the 
people.  This  indeed  is  the  central  difference  between 
the  rehgious  attitude  of  Catholics  and  Protestants. 
Both  look  to  Christ  as  the  one  Name  given  under  heaven 
whereby  we  can  be  saved,  but,  where  "  Catholics  "  look 
to  the  objective  Christ  as  it  were  through  the  mediation 
of  a  rite  ministered  by  a  human  priesthood,  the  "  Pro- 
testant "  goes  back  to  the  Christ  directly  to  find  Him 
in  the  Word,  in  those  acts  which  are  essentially  and 
directly  His  own.* 

As  my  whole  concern  is  at  present  with  the  broad 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


87 


principles  of  the  Protestant  position,  I  am  not  in  the 
least  troubled  whether  this  is  an  entirely  fair  state- 
ment of  the  Catholic  position.  I  am  quite  willing 
to  take  it  as  it  stands.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  this 
is  the  way  in  which  the  Catholic  position  strikes  one 
looking  at  it  from  the  Protestant  side. 

'  The  Protestant  goes  back  to  find  Christ  in  the  word.' 
I  do  not  ask  how  far  this  position  can  be  justified, 
whether  or  how  far  it  can  be  maintained  in  the  face  of 
modern  criticism.  Those  questions  are  becoming 
increasingly  urgent,  but  we  must  be  sure  first  exactly 
what  the  view  itself  implies. 

Plainly  there  are  very  literal,  or  perhaps  liter alist, 
senses,  which  Protestants  would  not  mean.  They  have 
been  accused  of  an  idolatry  of  Scripture,  and  they 
would  not  be  wise  to  resent  impatiently  a  charge  which 
warned  them  of  a  danger.  No  doubt  there  are  Pro- 
testants who  do  treat  the  Bible  as  if  it  was  God  Himself, 
and  who  imagine  that  if  they  read  their  Bible  enough 
and  quote  it  enough  all  is  well  with  them.  Such  abuse 
of  God's  gifts  comes  all  too  easily  to  the  best  of  us,  but 
it  would  be  unreasonable  to  make  Protestantism  itself 
responsible  for  individual  failings. 

Let  us  put  such  charges  aside.  We  all  believe  that 
Christ  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  Whatever 
Protestants  may  be  led  into  at  times,  no  Protestant 
means  to  put  the  Bible  in  the  place  of  Christ,  yet  we 
believe  that  Book  contains  the  inspired  record  of  what 
Christ  did  and  said,  of  how  He  showed  Himself.  We 
do  not  '  find  Christ  in  the  word  '  in  a  material  or  liter- 
alist  sense,  but  we  can  come  to  Him  in  so  far  as  what  is 
there  written  we  take  up,  understand,  realise,  by  our 
will,  mind,  imagination,  that  is  in  meditation  upon  the 
word  with  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 


88     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


This  second  answer  is  much  more  Christian  than  the 
first,  because  the  object  of  our  meditation  is  so  much 
higher.  In  the  Gospels  we  are  meditating  upon  Christ 
Himself  as  the  Son  of  God  ;  in  good  people  and  in 
beautiful  things  we  see  His  operation,  we  see  Himself 
only  by  abstraction  from  that  operation. 

Nevertheless,  neither  of  these  answers  seems  to  meet 
our  question  quite  satisfactorily.  Both  are  speaking  of 
how  we  can  come  to  Christ,  whereas  by  all  Christian 
principle  we  ought  to  be  asking  first  how  does  Christ 
come  to  us.  Both  answers  meet  the  latter  question  in 
the  same  way  :  Christ  comes  to  us  as  a  spiritual  pres- 
ence in  meditation.  What  is  the  exact  meaning  of  this 
word  *  Presence  *  ?  I  do  not  want  to  make  my 
analysis  more  confused  and  puzzling  than  I  can  help, 
but  I  am  afraid  many  people  are  already  confused  over 
the  meaning  of  a  presence  and  a  spiritual  presence.  It 
is  very  important  that  we  should  understand  the  differ- 
ence, and  I  can  make  it  clear  by  a  little  analogy  which 
I  think  all  will  recognise. 

I  am  looking  over  some  letters  of  an  absent  friend. 
As  I  think  over  them  and  recall  him,  his  spirit  seems  to 
be  near  me.  Few  of  us  would  care  to  say  that  such  a 
spiritual  communion  and  spiritual  presence  were  unreal, 
but  at  the  same  time  we  should  all  feel  that  it  was  very 
different  to  what  we  should  call  the  actual  presence  of 
our  friend.    How  should  we  explain  the  difference  ? 

Should  we  not  say  that  while  those  who  love  are 
always  perhaps  in  some  sense  present,  the  special 
spiritual  presence  was  occasioned  by  our  thinking  and 
recalling,  that  is,  it  came  through,  by  means  of,  a 
certain  mental  state.  It  will  hardly  be  denied  that 
experiences  of  such  spiritual  intercourse  are  most 
common  with  those  of  the  strongest  emotional  and 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


89 


imaginative  capacity,  just  because  they  can  reach  the 
necessary  mental  state  most  easily.  It  will  further 
follow  that  the  experience  is  qualified  and  conditioned 
by  the  mental  state  and  activity.  For  while  the 
experience  arises  in  or  from  my  consciousness,  it  is  not 
the  whole  of  it.  I  must  therefore  abstract  or  select 
those  thoughts  which  seem  due  to  a  '  presence  '  from 
amid  others  which  are  my  own. 

What  we  call  an  actual  presence  is  not  a  presence  in 
experience  only,  but  to  experience.  It  does  not  come 
up  by  being  recalled  in  my  mind  by  attention,  rather 
it  is  a  presence  which  recalls  my  mind  when  it  grows 
inattentive.  So  also  it  is  not  qualified  by,  but  qualifies, 
my  thoughts,  for,  just  as  it  stimulates  and  maintains, 
so  it  corrects,  them  by  its  independent  actuality.  And 
this  actual  presence  is  the  ground  of  possibility  to  the 
spiritual.  We  very  rarely  have  this  sense  of  spiritual 
nearness  to  the  absent  except  in  regard  to  those  we 
have  known  by  a  more  direct  personal  intercourse. 

In  talking  of  a  spiritual  presence  of  the  absent,  I  am 
not  of  course  thinking  of  what  is  technically  called 
*  spiritualism,'  which  seems  to  me  a  superstitious 
trading  upon  the  much  simpler,  and  yet  much  more 
complex,  experience  common  in  some  degree  to  all  of 
us.  I  am  only  trying  to  emphasise  the  difference 
between  the  spiritual  presence  and  the  actual  which 
our  common  experience  recognises,  however  we  explain 
them. 

Can  we,  however,  apply  those  differences  to  Chris- 
tianity ?  I  maintain  that  the  application  of  them  is 
its  first  distinctive  principle.  It  was  the  essence  of 
heathenism  that  it  could  offer  only  a  subjective 
Presence  of  God,  a  Presence  in  thought,  in  experience, 
which  might  be  real,  but  which  it  was  intensely  difficult 


90     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


to  be  sure  was  more  than  a  psychological  or  mental 
state,  for  the  very  same  reason  that  if  it  was  not  con- 
stituted by  the  state,  it  was  yet  dependent  upon  it. 
It  was  the  essence  of  Christianity  that  it  gave  an  actual 
Presence, — in  a  boat,  in  the  upper  room,  and  that 
actuality  did  not  do  away  with,  but  vitalised  all 
spiritual  communion  with  God,  defended  it  against  the 
inherent  defect  of  its  own  abstract  method.  The 
question  we  urged  stiU  remains  :  has  that  actuality  for 
us  now  ceased  with  Olivet  ?  If  what  '  happened  '  once 
is  of  so  much  moment  to  us,  is  there  nothing  parallel 
to  it,  maintaining  and  applying  it,  which  *  happens  * 
now  ? 

Of  the  answer  Protestantism  meant  to  give  there  can 
be  no  sort  of  doubt.  It  asserted  above  aU  the  vital 
necessity  of  faith  in  God.  It  was  Christ  who  came  to 
us,  not  we  who  attained  to  Him.  His  presence  and 
His  favour  were  the  free  gift  of  His  mercy.  For  the 
sake  of  this  Gospel  it  protested  no  human  acts,  neither 
pilgrimages  nor  vows  nor  sacrifices  of  masses  nor  any 
other,  could  make  men  righteous  nor  bring  them  to 
God.  That  Gospel  and  that  protest,  the  doctrine  of 
the  mass  as  Christ's  own  act  and  gift  set  forth  and 
emphasised,  but  since  those  who  in  theory  maintained 
the  doctrine  were  in  practice  habitually  treating  the 
mass  as  a  human  act,  specially  effective  in  acquiring 
merit,  we  can  hardly  wonder  that  the  Protestant 
Reformers,  accepting  the  confusion  as  it  was  offered 
them,  repudiated  the  doctrine  from  which  it  seemed  to 
arise. 

When,  however.  Protestantism  came  to  organise  its 
own  religious  system  it  had  no  other  basis  from  which 
to  start  than  that  given  above  :  '  the  believer  finds  and 
comes  to  Christ  in  the  word.'    With  intentions  the 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


91 


most  passionately  sincere,  nay,  just  because  of  its 
sincerity,  Protestantism  failed  to  see  the  confusions  in 
which  it  was  involving  itself — the  confusion  between 
faith  in  God  Who  is  more  than  man,  and  faith  in  faith, 
that  is,  in  a  feeling  of  assurance,  which  is  a  virtue  and  a 
feeling  of  man,  the  confusion  between  our  coming  to 
Christ  and  Christ  coming  to  us,  between  Christ's 
Presence  in  the  word  and  Christ's  Presence  in  devout 
meditation  upon  the  word. 

The  results  were  none  the  less  serious  from  not  being 
realised.  An  element  of  inconsistency  had  been  intro- 
duced into  Evangelicalism  itself.  Of  course  none  of 
us  would  assert  or  believe  for  a  moment  that  anything 
of  ours,  thoughts  or  feelings  or  states,  could  bring  us 
to  Christ  or  constitute  a  merit.  We  depend  upon  His 
grace.  That  is  our  faith.  Yet  so  long  as — repudiating 
the  external  act — our  religious  practice  regards  these 
states  as  the  necessary  conditions  in  and  through  which 
that  special  Presence  is  made  to  us,  so  long  we  must 
seek  first  to  excite  or  create  those  states  in  ourselves, 
and  so  long  therefore  they  become  in  effect  merits. 

While  these  inconsistencies  are  not  realised,  a  man's 
faith  may  stand  firm  as  a  rock,  and  to  multitudes  of 
Protestants  it  does  so  stand,  but  the  pressure  of  storm 
and  the  infiltration  of  the  rising  flood  come  to  test  the 
foundation  of  all  human  structures.  If  we  look  more 
widely  I  could  point  out  among  two  very  different 
groups  of  people  how  things  are  going.  Each  has  its 
own  lesson. 

(i)  We  have  very  much  need  to  consider  the  case  of 
the  younger  generation.  I  have  admitted  that  Pro- 
testantism has  manifested  a  very  real  faith.  No  one 
can  fail  to  see  how  much  that  faith  was  due  to  its  faith 
in   Holy   Scripture ;    Protestants   have  constantly 


92     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


affirmed  that  was  its  root.  And  for  a  plain  reason. 
So  long  as  men  accepted  the  Bible  as  the  unquestioned 
word  of  God,  so  long  there  was  not  merely  in  the  past, 
but  still  present,  an  unfailing  witness  to  something 
greater  than  their  thoughts  or  their  feelings.  In  a 
quite  simple  way  it  was  possible  to  think  of  a  Presence 
given  by  the  word. 

Modern  criticism  has  made  the  old  attitude  im- 
possible. I  am  not  referring  to  the  doubts  thrown 
upon  the  essence  of  the  narrative  itself.  We  may  be 
convinced  that  the  conservative  views  more  than  hold 
their  own,  but  if  they  triumph,  they  must  triumph  as 
criticism,  and  the  result  is  the  same.  We  are  all  alike 
driven  to  recognise  that  the  Bible  is  a  book,  or  a  series 
of  books,  of  human  authorship.  Though  we  maintain 
to  the  full  its  inspiration  and  its  unique  authority,  we 
can  no  longer  forget  that  what  is  written  is  not  itself 
a  Presence.  That  old  idea  never  was  consistently 
possible  for  reasons  I  have  given ;  thus  we  are  hardly 
conscious  of  a  change  although  we  are  quite  definitely 
substituting  personal '  experience  '  as  the  ground  of  re- 
ligion in  place  of  the  quasi-sacramental  This  of  the  book. 

There  are,  of  course,  yet  multitudes  untouched  by 
new  difficulties,  and  there  are  many  more  of  the  older 
generation  whose  minds  were  formed  in  the  old  faith, 
who  still  go  on  bravely.  But  the  younger  generation, 
especially  the  students  of  our  Theological  Colleges, 
have  been  brought  up  in  the  new.  We  have  taught 
them  to  look  to  *  experience,'  and  they  have  not  looked 
in  vain,  but  they  are  now  faced  by  a  question  of  which 
the  older  generation  never  thought,  and  of  which  we 
older  men  hardly  realise  the  pressure, — '  If  I  can  now 
by  processes  of  my  own,  by  meditation  and  reflection, 
by  feeling  and  imagination,  realise  and  come  directly 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


93 


into  the  Presence  of  God,  why  was  an  external  Incarna- 
tion ever  necessary  ?  No  doubt  the  Gospel  story  as 
narrated  to  us  provides  the  most  inspiring  of  all  sub- 
jects of  Meditation,  but  the  mere  historicity  of  the  facts 
does  not  affect  its  usefulness  for  spiritual  purposes.' 

Once  started  a  multitude  of  unconsidered  considera- 
tions push  us  along.  Modern  criticism  must  be  honestly 
met,  but  if  we  only  knew  with  what  we  were  dealing  we 
have  no  special  reason  to  be  afraid  of  it.  The  modern 
constructive  efforts  which  arise  from  it  are  very  differ- 
ent matters,  for  our  Christianity  has  been  so  much  a 
feeling  and  we  have  paid  so  little  attention  to  its  real 
basis  that  we  have  no  idea  what  we  are  reconstructing. 
Anything  that  sounds  nice  with  an  element  of  admira- 
tion for  the  personality  of  Jesus  stands  sufficiently  well 
for  Christian.  The  Old  Testament  with  its  magnifi- 
cent appeal  to  the  reality  of  God  is  now  unintelligible  to 
us,  except  as  a  museum  of  Primitive  Religions.  Half 
the  New  Testament  is  passed  over  as  '  Pauline  Theo- 
logy.' That  God  was  made  Man,  that  He  died  for  our 
sins,  thereby  reconciling  us  to  God,  that  we  are  raised 
in  His  Resurrection,  we  are  told  that  we  can  afford  to 
let  all  that  go,  for  *  the  dream  of  the  Evangelist '  still 
serves  as  a  basis  for  religious  experience.  We  do  not 
recognise  that  our  modern  theories  are  busy  saving  our 
religion  at  the  expense  of  om:  faith. 

We  reach  the  same  conclusion  by  another  and  hardly 
less  significant  road.  I  demurred  to  the  argument 
that  our  religious  differences  were  merely  tempera- 
mental on  the  scientific  ground  that  men  very  rarely 
in  fact  choose  their  denomination.  The  difference  of 
religious  character  is  quite  plainly  due  in  most  cases 
to  religious  upbringing.  But  there  is  another  and  much 
more  serious  objection  to  the  theory  of  temperaments. 


94     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Have  we  forgotten  that  this  is  exactly  the  argument 
which  an  African  brings  on  behalf  of  fetishism,  the 
Indian  on  behalf  of  Hinduism,  and  the  Arab  on  behalf 
of  Mohammedism  ? 

We  have  come  to  base  our  religion  upon  personal 
experience  and  have  freed  ourselves  from  the  dominion 
of  the  fact,  and  thus  from  the  faith  which  can  be  set 
forth  in  Creed  or  presented  in  forms.  Now  we  have 
learnt  that  these  religious  experiences  are  by  no  means 
confined  to  Christianity  ;  they  are  the  common  pro- 
perty of  all  mystics.  The  Hindu  says  :  *  You  come  to 
God  through  Christ,  and  that  access  is  valid  for  you. 
I  also  come  to  God  and  have  experience  of  Him  not 
less  real,  but  I  find  other  means  to  be  more  suitable.' 
When  we  began  from  faith,  when  by  faith  we  were 
looking  out  of  ourselves,  when  our  hope  lay  not  in  our 
coming  to  God,  but  in  His  coming  to  us,  the  facts  of 
the  Incarnation  and  the  Redemption  of  Christ  formed  a 
gospel  common  to  all.  But  since  experience  is  so 
largely  a  matter  of  temperament,  I  do  not  see  how  we 
can  meet  on  this  ground  the  contention  of  the  heathen 
that  his  experience  is  equally  valid. 

I  am  afraid  that  even  so  we  are  not  at  rest.  The 
psychologists  are  still  waiting  for  us  with  their  questions. 
'Are  these  experiences  of  yours  experiences  of  anything 
more  than  themselves  ?  Are  they  not  just  psychical 
states,  brought  about  by  appropriate  conditions  and 
imaginative  activity  ?  The  rules  of  the  old  mystics 
for  producing  the  state  of  ecstasy  are  very  suggestive. 
You  talk  of  a  supernatural  Presence,  but  we  are  only 
directly  conscious  of  certain  states  and  those  semi- 
dream  states  of  vague,  highly  generalised  thinking  are 
very  favourable  to  auto-suggestion  from  the  sub-con- 
sciousness.'   It  follows  that  when  we  asked  whether 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


95 


the  Name  of  God  stood  for  anything,  we  were  fretting 
ourselves  in  vain.  It  is  true  that  in  the  world  as  we 
live  in  it  there  is  no  real  meaning  for  God,  but  there 
are  still  men  capable  of  beautiful  thoughts  and  at  times 
of  heroic  action,  which  after  all  are  the  things  that 
really  matter. 

Many  of  those  for  whom  I  am  mainly  writing,  men 
of  sincere  religiousness  and  true  Christian  faith,  may 
think  this  last  paragraph  a  mere  scare.  That  is  just 
why  we  are  where  we  are.  Because  we  had  no  idea  of 
what  we  were  doing,  we  had  made  ourselves  the  centre 
of  our  own  religious  world.  Everything  with  us  must 
begin  from  contemplation,  which  is  our  own,  instead 
of  from  worship  which  is  a  worship  of  God.  Next,  the 
true  substance  and  end  of  religion  is  the  personal,  and 
thereby  we  have  made  ourselves  the  judges  of  God.  Of 
old  men  asked,  what  is  His  way  and  what  is  His  will. 
When  we  began  to  ask,  '  of  what  value  are  they  ?  '  we 
were  asking  of  what  value  are  they  to  us,  and  the 
question  thus  fatally  misapprehended  we  had  no  ground 
left  to  answer. 

Modern  criticism  has  not  really  moved  these  issues 
at  all,  but  when  we  have  to  adjust  ourselves  to  a  new 
situation,  the  faith  which  survives  only  as  a  habit 
slips  out  unperceived.  A  man-in-t he- train — always 
much  more  interesting  than  the  man-in-the-street — 
once  said  to  me  *  our  Lord  Himself  told  us  that  our 
first  duty  was  to  love  our  neighbour.'  I  intimated 
that  this  must  be  a  new  textual  reading.  In  the 
version  I  was  familiar  with,  it  ran  that  first  we  were 
to  love  the  Lord  our  God.  He  looked  puzzled,  and 
replied  doubtfully,  '  Yes,  but  then  we  don't  know 
anything  about  God,  do  we  ?  ' 

(2)  I  have  spoken  of  the  young,  because  it  is  the 


96     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


new  generation  which  facing  new  questions  works  out 
the  logic  of  what  was  to  older  habits  but  a  casual 
inconsistency.    I  come  now  to  the  common  man. 

When  we  spoke  of  religious  difference  as  tempera- 
mental, I  asked  whether  we  had  not  forgotten  that 
this  was  exactly  the  argument  brought  by  the  heathen. 
I  ask  now  whether  we  have  not  forgotten  that  this  is 
exactly  the  argument  which  an  immense  mass  of  people 
bring  for  not  being  religious  at  all  ?  However  it  has 
come  about,  the  majority  of  English  people  do  regard 
*  religion  '  as  a  thing  possible  for  only  a  certain  type 
of  character.  We  deplore  the  indifference  of  this  ma- 
jority. I  am  convinced  that  if  we  knew  their  mental 
history  there  are  few  men  who  would  not  like  to  be 
religious,  and  there  are  few  who  have  not,  at  least  once 
in  their  life,  tried  to  be.  If  they  are  indifferent,  it  is 
with  a  conscious  purpose  of  making  the  best  of  a  failure, 
very  much  as  a  man  in  early  life  regrets  not  being 
musical  and  ends  in  scoffing  at  music. 

The  root  of  this  evil  lies,  I  am  convinced,  with  relig- 
ious people.  It  is  the  very  earnest  people  who  are  not 
sufficiently  alive  to  the  danger  of  assuming  that  the 
real  substance  of  the  Christian  faith  lies  in  just  those 
parts  which  to  them  are  most  delightful.  I  can  make 
my  meaning  plain  if  I  might  back  out  one  paradox  by 
another.  Perhaps  both  are  exaggerations,  but  there 
is  only  too  much  reason  for  saying  that  education  in 
England  is  killed  by  clever  people,  and  Christianity  in 
England  by  religious  people.  In  both  directions  the 
experts,  the  really  able  exponents,  insist  on  all  going 
by  their  road  to  the  same  kind  of  success.  They  fail  to 
realise  that  the  common  man's  needs,  the  kind  of  thing 
possible  to  him,  and  therefore  his  way  of  reaching  that 
thing,  are  all  widely  different  to  those  of  the  expert. 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION 


97 


If  we  look  back  at  the  ideal  of  Protestant  Evangeli- 
calism as  I  have  tried  to  express  it  above,  that  '  com- 
muning with  God  in  His  word/  by  which  the  realisation 
of  God's  presence  and  actuaHty  are  attained,  requires 
a  certain  intensity  of  feeling  and  imagination,  and  such 
feeling  and  imagination  are  the  two  most  markedly 
temperamental  things  in  existence.  If  we  test  by 
races,  the  Celtic  temperament  is  emotional  and  imagin- 
ative, and  it  is  undeniably  religious  ;  the  tempera- 
ment of  the  Englishman  is  stolid  and  matter-of-fact, 
religion  comes  to  him  relatively  with  difficulty.  We 
may  test  it  by  classes  and  occupations.  Religion  is 
most  found  among  people  with  a  certain  amount  of 
leisure,  who  are  not  too  hard  driven  by  the  pressure  of 
affairs  or  exacting  duties.  Therefore  it  is  more  common 
among  women  than  among  men.  Can  we  suppose, 
would  anyone  contend,  that  differences  of  temperament 
and  business  make  men  either  less  near  or  less  dear  to 
God  ?  We  know  well  enough  that  while  they  alter  the 
form  and  expression,  they  do  not  affect  the  depth  and 
reahty,  of  love  to  wife  and  child  ?  Certainly  they  do 
not  diminish  the  need  of  faith  in  God,  why  should  they 
alter  its  possibility  ?  If,  as  we  all  admit,  they  do  very 
much  affect  the  capacity  for  '  religion  '  and  for  religious 
'  experience,'  is  not  this  a  proof  that  our  notion  of 
rehgion  has  got  out  of  touch  with  our  faith  ? 

I  do  not  therefore  feel  at  all  assured  that  this  very 
personal  religious  presentment  is  by  itself  entirely 
healthy  or  even  safe  for  those  to  whom  it  is  possible. 
It  needs  with  it  an  element  of  practice  less  subjective. 
But  certainly  this  religion  comes  in  a  form  and  with 
demands  which  a  large  number,  I  think,  the  majority,  of 
Enghshmen  are  least  able  to  meet. 


G 


CHAPTER  VI. 

HOLY  COMMUNION.  II. 

In  the  last  chapter  I  stated  an  '  obvious  argument '  for 
Sacramentahsm,  part  of  which  would  consist  in  deny- 
ing the  possibility  of  '  plotting  off  direct  effects  of 
Grace,  definitely  and  measurably.'  While  I  admitted 
that  we  could  not  pretend  to  follow  in  this  way  the 
working  of  God's  Spirit,  I  yet  suggested  that  it  was  not 
wise  to  fall  back  entirely  on  a  kind  of  Agnosticism, 
while  affirming  that  the  results  must  be  there  '  because 
it  is  written.*  If  certain  things  have  that  tremendous 
influence  which  is  claimed  for  them,  we  ought  to  be 
able  to  show  what  the  influence  is  and  in  a  general 
way  how  it  operates.  I  think  also  that  this  can  be 
shown. 

I  have  fully  accepted  the  earnest  protestations  of 
Evangelicals  that  they  believe  in  Christ,  and  that  they 
have  the  most  sincere  horror  of  making  their  own 
piety,  their  own  states  of  feeling  an  efficient  merit 
or  cause  of  His  Presence  or  of  His  operation.  But  to 
recognise  an  evil  is  not  the  same  thing  as  to  escape  it, 
and  I  have  tried  to  show  that  that  very  thing  of  which 
Evangelicals  have  so  sincere  a  horror  is  involved, 
implied,  or  suggested  by  their  whole  religious  system. 
I  have  tried  to  show  further  that  the  difficulty  which 
our  children  find  in  retaining,  and  which  common  men 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.  11. 


find  in  even  reaching,  this  evangeHcal  faith,  is  a  direct 
consequence  of  the  inconsistency. 

I  must  also  try  to  show  that  the  Cathohc  doctrine, 
by  the  assertion  of  an  actual  sacramental  Presence 
given  objectively  through  certain  acts,  does  not  con- 
tradict any  principle  in  the  Protestant  position,  but 
rather  supplements  it,  renders  it  more  consistent. 

Here  I  must  point  out  how  much  the  difficulty  of 
our  discussion  is  increased  by  the  uncertainty  and 
variety  of  our  use  of  terms.  I  have  spoken  of  an  actual 
Presence,  of  objective  and  subjective,  of  material  and 
spiritual.  We  all  can,  and  mostly  do,  use  all  these 
terms  in  several  different  senses.  Every  term  I  have 
used  is  capable  of  starting  a  fresh  controversy,  by  which 
we  can  keep  confusion  alive  for  ever.  I  am  only  trying 
to  explain  real  and  very  obvious  differences  in  the 
spiritual  life,  by  real  and  very  obvious  differences  in 
common  life,  and  I  am  not  without  hope  that  I  can 
make  a  meaning  clear  to  those  who  are  sincerely 
anxious  to  reach  a  meaning. 

Thus  I  have  spoken  of  the  actual  and  material 
presence  of  my  friend  and  how  real  it  is  to  me  ;  anyhow 
that  it  is  different  to  the  purely  spiritual  presence  I  can 
call  up  when  he  is  absent.  Whether  actual,  real, 
material,  and  all  the  rest  are  the  best  terms  I  cannot 
say.  I  call  the  one  objective,  and  the  other  subjective. 
I  believe  metaphysicians  have  maintained  that  this  is 
incorrect.  I  could  argue  about  terms  myself  if  I 
wanted  to.  For  the  very  simple  purpose  for  which  I 
use  them,  is  it  worth  while  ? 

The  position  which  I  am  trying  to  explain  can  all  be 
expressed  in  the  words  *  I  want  Christ,'  and  I  mean  that 
in  just  the  sense  of  a  child  crying  in  the  night  *  I  want 
mother.*    We  grown-ups  may  learn  to  believe,  and  the 


100    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


child  may  learn,  that  though  mother  has  gone  home, 
she  is  not  far  off ;  but  we  shall  not  persuade  ourselves, 
and  we  shall  not  persuade  the  child's  trenchant  truthful- 
ness, that  that  is  the  same  thing.  We  may  argue 
endlessly  as  to  the  best  way  of  describing  the  difference, 
but  we  shall  not  argue  the  difference  away. 

The  child  can  only  explain  itself  by  saying,  *  I  want 
to  put  my  arms  round  her,  and  I  want  her  here  to  kiss 
me.'  I  cannot  explain  myself  except  by  saying,  '  I 
want  Christ  here  to  worship  Him.'  Pictures,  memories, 
written  words  of  the  departed  are  all  exceedingly 
precious,  but  they  are  not  the  very  self.  I  may  not 
worship  my  thought  and  imaginations,  and  I  shrink 
from  giving  direct  worship  to  what  is  only  realised 
through  those  faculties.  Is  Christ  also  *  departed  '  ;  is 
there  nothing  now  by  which  He  is  *  here  '  ? 

My  phraseology,  however,  is  curiously  like  that  of 
the  Protestant  Evangelicals,  but  the  inference  is  differ- 
ent. *  We  want  Christ, — Christ  Himself, — not  forms 
and  ceremonies.'  That  we  should  be  arguing  against 
one  another  with  the  same  words  seems  very  confusing, 
but  it  is  really  very  encouraging.  Confusions  we  may 
hope  to  clear  up  for  we  are  both  passionately  seeking 
the  same  reality.  This  is  the  Evangelical  conviction 
common  to  us. 

If  the  Protestant  reply  were  made  controversially, 
I  should  have  to  point  out  that  it  ignores  the  point. 
It  is  the  whole  of  our  contention  that  Christ  Himself 
is  present  in  that  form.  But  that,  however,  in  its 
turn  does  not  meet  the  real  Protestant  objection, 
which  is  very  frequently  and  better  expressed  in  saying 
— *  We  want  to  come  to  Christ  directly,  not  through  a 
human  or  material  mediation.' 

Ought  we  not  to  examine  more  carefully  what  these 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.    II.  lOi 


words,  medium,  mediation,  mediator,  really  stand  for  ? 
In  the  plain  general  sense  to  reject  mediation  is  to 
repudiate  all  the  fundamental  processes  of  human 
nature,  in  which  the  universal  and  the  spiritual  are 
always  mediated  by  the  particular  and  the  material. 
Gravitation  is  mediated  by  apples  that  fall,  weights 
that  burden,  planets  that  move.  The  truth  that  is  in 
the  soul  is  mediated  by  words,  and  love  by  acts.  To 
repeat  the  phrase  I  used  above,  the  spiritual  manifests 
its  reahty  in  the  '  here,'  '  this,*  '  now.'  In  heaven  it 
may  be  different  where  we  shall  know  as  we  are  known, 
but  to  us,  because  we  were  on  earth,  the  Eternal  Logos 
of  God  was  mediated  by  a  body  as  truly  material  as 
our  own. 

Is  this  changed  by  the  Ascension  ?  If  so,  who  or 
what  did  S.  Paul  see  on  the  road  to  Damascus,  and  S. 
John  worship  at  Patmos  ?  ^  Alas,  we  are  not  yet 
ascended,  and  our  nature  remains.  For  us  then  two 
attitudes  are  possible.  We  may  reject  all  mediation, 
all  idea  of  a  *  here,'  '  this,'  '  now,'  in  one  thing  more 
than  another.  All  are  equally  divine,  and  Christ  is 
equally  everywhere.  Prayer  and  mediation  and  com- 
munion are  then  all  equally  futile.  I  have  already 
considered  that  possibility,  and  I  do  not  think  any  of 
us  are  inclined  to  take  it.  The  Protestant  phrase  we 
have  discussed  affirms  a  mediation  in  saying  that  we 
come  '  through  the  word.' 

Or,  secondly,  we  may,  as  in  fact  we  do,  accept  some 
form  of  the  mediation  of  an  actual  Presence.  Catholics 
assert  that  it  comes  primarily  through  a  Covenant  act, 

^  If  a  modern  critic  disputes  the  record,  at  least  he  cannot  dispute 
that  S.  Paul  and  all  early  Christians  believed  that  the  ascension 
had  not  invalidated  the  possibility  of  such  a  Presence  or  the 
legitimacy  of  worship  so  given. 


102    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


but  this  is  not  more  a  mediating  than  if  it  were  through 
the  personal  states  or  experiences  which  belong  to 
meditation  upon  scripture.  This  word  '  mediation ' 
implies  therefore  nothing  more  than  '  means,'  the  means 
through  which  something — in  this  case  a  spiritual 
Presence — is  given  that  it  may  be  realised. 

It  is,  however,  the  essential  necessity  of  our  Evan- 
gelical faith  that  we  should  clearly  distinguish  the  gift 
and  the  realisation  as  two  things.  The  gift  is  God's 
act.  The  realisation,  appreciation,  '  discernment,'  is 
ours  ;  it  is  the  first  part  of  the  response  we  make  to  a 
gift,  but  not  the  means  or  cause  of  it.  It  was  not  through 
our  realisation  of  God's  presence,  through  the  ready 
faith  of  men  in  Christ,  still  less  through  the  earnestness 
and  love  men  felt,  that  God  was  made  man  and  died  for 
us.  If  it  was  through  anything  of  ours,  it  was  through 
our  sin, — the  sin  of  unbelief,  the  sins  which  rejected. 
If,  then,  we  accept  the  Holy  Communion,  the  Bread 
and  Wine,  as  the  means,  the  '  symbols '  in  the  ancient 
sense  of  the  word,  whereby  the  Presence  is  made  to  us, 
the  essential  principle  of  Evangelicalism,  the  essential 
distinction  of  gift  and  response  stands  out  clearly.  We 
do  not  thereby  ignore  or  slight  the  necessity  of  realisa- 
tion or  response.  Our  ignorance  may  make  the  gift 
ineffective  for  us,  but  it  does  not  do  even  that  certainly. 
If  we  are  wilfully  or  carelessly  ignorant,  that  which  does 
not  operate  to  salvation  works  in  judgment. 

Nor  do  we  wish  to  make  little,  or  even  question  the 
reality,  of  that  Personal  Presence  which  is  given  in 
experience,  recognised  in  thought  and  feeling.  Certainly 
we  ought  not  to  deny  the  possibility  of  '  coming  to 
Christ  directly.'  We  do,  however,  ask  whether  it  is 
quite  consistent  with  Evangelicalism  to  regard  these 
methods,  dependent  as  they  are  on  an  effort  and  state 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.    II.  103 


of  our  own,  as  the  only  means  of  access  ?  It  is  not  the 
Cathohc  who  limits  God's  operation  by  denying  personal 
access ;  it  is  rather  the  Protestant  who  denies  that 
there  is  anything  except  the  personal,  making  the 
sacramental  only  one  form  of  the  personal.  If  we 
admit  diverse  ways,  ought  not  that  which  constitutes 
a  coming  to  Christ  to  be  rather  dependent  on  that  which 
constitutes  a  coming  of  Christ  ?  For  this  we  urge  that 
all  of  us,  both  those  who  can  reach  the  fulness  of  such 
spiritual  communion  and  those  who  can  reach  it  very 
little  and  with  great  difficulty,  have  the  greatest  need 
of  this  faith  in  a  Presence  we  worship  and  receive,  given 
according  to  Christ's  promise  in  ways  independent  of 
our  feeling.  Those  of  spiritual  power  need  it  lest  they 
should  be  found  believing  rather  in  human  capacities 
than  in  Christ,  or  in  Christ  only  by  virtue  of  their 
capacities  ;  those  of  spiritual  incapacity  need  it  lest 
they  should  despair  without  some  witness  that  God  has 
not  forgotten  them.  For  in  this  presentment,  in  fact, 
all  temperaments  are  at  one.  '  He  who  gathers  much 
has  nothing  over,  and  he  who  gathers  little  has  no  lack.' 
Before  the  objective  Presence  in  the  Communion, — 
as  before  the  Babe  of  Bethlehem, — Shepherds  and 
Wise  Men  worship  on  the  same  footing.  To  Herod,  as 
after  to  the  Pharisee,  there  was  the  same  '  Presence  * 
even  though  they  did  not  *  receive  it.' 

*  What  a  man  brings  to  the  Communion,  that  he 
takes  from  it.'  We  bring  to  Christ  at  all  times  and  in 
all  ways  our  weakness,  our  vanity,  our  selfishness,  our 
sinfulness,  for  this  is  all  we  have  to  bring,  but  is  this 
all  Christ  has  to  give  ? 

I  said  above,  however,  that  there  were  two  different 
replies  given  by  Protestant  Evangelicalism.  Some 
certainly  have  very  strongly  affirmed  to  me  that  they 


104    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


believed  in  a  Real  Presence  in  the  Holy  Communion 
— '  as  much  as  you  do/  I  do  not  say  that  this  answer 
and  the  one  we  have  just  considered  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled, though  they  appear  to  me  opposed.  I  am  quite 
willing  to  give  both  full  consideration. 

I  am  aware  then  that  many  Protestants  do  hold  this 
second  view.  I  believe  very  many  do.  Yet  I  must 
reply  here  what  I  have  said  above  on  the  importance 
and  significance  of  religious  difference,  that  is,  of  differ- 
ence in  practice.  If  Protestants  do  so  hold,  how  is  it 
that  this  supreme  gift  of  Christ's  Presence  is  relatively 
so  little  sought  ?  Why  is  it  that  the  sacrament  is 
coming  to  be  less  and  less  a  cardinal  factor  in  the  system, 
while,  just  as  men  have  grown  more  cathoHc,  so  it  holds 
a  larger  place  in  their  habits  ?  On  the  other  hand, 
where  the  divergence  is  so  marked  in  practice,  why 
should  there  be  a  certain  tendency  to  assimilate  our 
language  ?  Surely  there  are  forces  at  work  in  us  which 
want  further  analysing. 

If  we  look  back  at  Church  history  we  cannot  help 
being  struck  by  the  large  place  which  the  Holy  Com- 
munion has  always  held  in  the  mind  and  practice  of 
Christian  men.  Long  before  what  are  commonly 
treated  as  the  ages  of  superstition,  from  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century,  that  is,  as  early  as  we  have  any 
quite  clear  evidence,  the  Holy  Communion  was  felt  to 
be  the  central  expression  of  Christian  worship  and  faith. 
Till  the  eleventh  century,  and  then  only  in  the  West, 
there  is  little  attempt  to  construct  a  formal  theory. 
But  whatever  meaning  men  gave  to  the  one,  their 
idea  of  the  Christian  faith  or  their  idea  of  the  Com- 
munion, they  quite  naturally  applied  to  the  other. 

I  am  not  appeahng  here  to  Church  tradition  as  a 
mechanical  authority,  but  merely  as  showing  the  con- 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.  II. 


105 


tinuous  judgment  of  the  common  Christian  instinct. 
I  think  we  have  a  right  to  say,  and  that  we  ought  to 
say,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  of  truth  moves  in  the  twen- 
tieth century  not  less  than  in  the  second  century  and 
in  the  fourth  and  in  the  sixteenth.  We  cannot,  there- 
fore, be  bound  by  the  views  of  our  predecessors.  But 
just  because  we  believe  in  an  Eternal  Spirit,  we  ought 
not  with  an  off-hand  assumption  to  make  the  ideas  of 
our  times  the  standard,  and  ourselves  the  judges 
between  truth  and  superstition. 

Broadly  speaking,  we  may  say  that  the  early  Re- 
formers were  anxious  to  maintain  the  early  view. 
Socinus  and  Zwingli  denied,  or  were  inclined  to  deny, 
that  the  Sacrament  was  anything  more  than  a  sign  or 
'  symbol,'  that  there  was  any  special  Presence  or  gift 
there  more  than  at  any  other  time.  Socinus*  view  was 
largely  determined  by  his  unwillingness  to  allow  any 
supernatural  element  in  human  Ufe.  Luther,  however, 
asserted  an  actual  Presence  in  terms  from  which  even 
an  extreme  Catholic  would  shrink.  Calvin,  though  he 
demurred  to  the  idea  of  a  *  Presence,'  asserted  no  less 
strongly  the  reality  of  the  gift  of  the  power  and  *  virtue  ' 
of  Christ. 

We  may  see  what  they  really  felt  in  another  way. 
How  far  it  was  reasonable,  how  far  it  was  exaggerated, 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  judge,  but  certainly  the  Re- 
formers had  a  great  dislike  to  the  multiphed  '  symbolic  ' 
rites  and  ceremonies  in  use.  They  swept  away  the 
Maunday  Thursday  custom  of  washing  feet,  the  Good 
Friday  '  sepulchre,'  the  Christmas  '  crib,'  the  burning 
of  candles,  the  use  of  images,  because  they  were 
'  superstitious,'  that  is,  because  people  had  come  to 
treat  mere  symbols  as  if  they  had  a  real  effectiveness 
independent  of  the  mind.    If  they  retained  the  Holy 


io6    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Communion,  it  was  plainly  because  it  stood  on  a  totally 
different  level.  They  recognised  that  the  Sacrament 
was  more  than  a  mere  symbol.  It  may  be  said  that 
they  retained  the  Communion  because  it  has  Scriptural 
warrant,  but  is  it  seriously  contended  that  the  Re- 
formers took  Scripture  as  a  mere  '  law  '  to  be  implicitly 
obeyed,  rather  than  as  a  Gospel  to  be  understood  ? 
In  any  case  the  argument  from  authority,  whatever 
authority  we  use,  only  carries  matters  a  step  back. 
Scripture  gives  to  Baptism  and  Communion  an  im- 
portance it  gives  to  no  other  forms,  because  no  others 
were  hke  them. 

Even  here,  therefore,  we  can  find  some  common 
ground,  but  we  have  still  to  explain  why  it  is  that  this 
— the  original  view  of  the  Reformers — held  its  ground 
so  uncertainly  and  with  so  much  difficulty.  If  we  learn 
that,  then  we  may  find  also  the  reason  for  the  divergence 
of  our  own  paths  to-day. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  and  I  believe  it  is  equally 
true  now,  the  point  of  divergence  between  Catholic 
and  Protestant  was  the  question  of  consecration.  The 
Catholic  maintained  that  the  Presence  of  Christ  was 
given  prior  to  and  independent  of  the  communicant  by 
the  priestly  act.  The  Protestant  Reformers,  whether 
they  held  high  or  low  views  of  sacramental  efficacy,  all 
were  alike  in  refusing  to  attribute  that  efficacy  to  the 
consecration. 

I  am  aware  that  to  many  of  my  readers  this  will  be 
a  mere  theological  technicality,  the  discussion  of  which 
seems  childish  and  repellent.  Let  us,  however,  consider 
for  one  moment.  Here  are  two  bodies  of  people,  who 
with  much  in  common  and  earnestly  desiring  unity 
yet  find  that  as  they  follow  out  their  own  lines  of 
thought  they  are  increasingly  drawn  apart.    It  is 


THE  ^CjLY  communion.   II.  107 


useless  to  ask  them  not  to  follow  out  their  own  thoughts. 
Would  it  not  be  well,  therefore,  to  find  where  the  differ- 
ence lies  ?  '  It  is  such  a  small  point.*  Of  course  it  is, 
but  its  importance  does  not  lie  in  itself  but  in  what  it 
leads  to.  Let  us  take  a  homely  illustration.  We  are 
all  alike  at  King's  Cross  under  one  roof.  There  is  very 
little  difference  between  *  platform  5  '  and  '  platform 
6,'  but  the  trains  go  to  very  different  places. 

I  am  more  anxious  lest  I  may  be  met  by  the  reply 
that  '  sacerdotalism  '  is  the  one  principle  of  absolute 
and  final  difference  which  it  is  useless  to  ask  Protestants 
to  accept.  I  would  rather  defer  the  question  of  the 
finahty  of  our  differences  till  I  have  had  an  opportunity 
of  setting  out  both  cases.  I  am  of  course  aware  that 
it  is  the  very  edge  of  all  difference  between  us.  I  have 
brought  it  in  for  that  very  reason.  I  believe  it  to  be 
more  loving,  more  honest  and  more  hopeful  to  set  our 
differences  in  the  forefront  in  order  that  we  may  under- 
stand them.  Of  course,  where  men  really  differ, — 
and  I  do  not  think  that  any  of  us  admit  that  our 
differences  are  unreal — if  either  party  or  both  refuse  to 
allow  that  they  may  have  been  mistaken,  or  that  they 
can  have  anything  to  learn  from  the  other,  it  is  no  use 
talking  about  unity.  If  in  some  way  a  union  is  estab- 
lished, then  the  union  will  be  unreal. 

I  have  tried  to  show  above  that  the  sacramental 
belief  is  a  necessity  of  any  stable  Evangelicalism, 
because  it  is  necessary  to  its  consistency.  I  have  tried 
to  show  this  even  in  regard  to  sincere  and  convinced 
Evangelicals.  I  have  also  tried  to  show  that  it  was 
necessary  if  we  were  to  keep  those  younger  members 
who  were  being  so  hard  driven  by  modern  theological 
tendencies,  and  still  more  necessary  if  we  were  to  bring 
to  Evangelicalism  that  large  mass  who  are  not  of  a 


io8    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


naturally  religious  temperament.  I  want  next  to  show 
that  this  question  of  priestly  consecration  is  necessary 
to  a  true  evangelical  view  of  the  Communion.  After 
that  I  will  try  to  show  how,  at  least  in  my  opinion,  the 
Catholic  view  of  the  sacrament  and  the  Non-Conformist 
view  of  a  '  free '  ministry  could  in  practice  work 
hand-in-hand. 

Supposing,  then,  that  we  could  agree  that  in  some 
real  sense  the  cup  which  we  bless  is  a  communion  of 
the  Blood  of  Christ,  and  the  bread  which  we  break  a 
communion  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  the  question  we  must 
now  ask  is  whether  the  difference  we  discriminate  or 
'  discern  '  between  this  and  any  other  act,  whether  the 
difference  which  does  make  this  so  great  a  blessing  to 
the  soul,  is  made  by  consecration  upon  the  altar  before 
and  apart  from  our  reception  of  it,  or  must  we  dis- 
tinguish it  only  as  we  feed  upon  it  by  faith  ?  Is  the 
difference  made  by  the  priest  in  consecration  or  by 
ourselves  in  communion  ?  And  I  would  consider  this 
question  also,  as  I  did  the  last,  from  a  purely  evangelical 
point  of  view. 

The  Cathohc  view  is  liable  to  the  two  objections  of 
its  materialism  and  its  sacerdotalism.  They  are  ugly 
words,  but  I  do  not  in  the  least  resent  them.  If  our 
brothers  see,  or  think  they  see,  evil  in  what  we  are 
doing,  it  is  a  quite  loving  act  for  them  to  warn  us.  It 
would  be  unloving  and  unwise  for  us  to  resent  it 
because  they  speak  plainly. 

About  materialism,  and  its  concomitant  formalism, 
I  have  said  a  great  deal  already.  These  charges  are 
brought  by  very  earnest  men,  by  very  competent  and 
very  loving  critics.  I  think  the  right  answer  is  that 
they  are  fully  justified.  Materialism  and  formalism 
are  not  merely  the  dangers  of  the  sacramental  system  ; 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.    II.  109 


they  are  dangers  into  which  we  have  fallen  very  deeply. 
I  might  express  a  doubt  whether  we  have  fallen  quite 
as  far  as  our  brethren  think,  for  there  are  sides  to  our 
system  for  which  perhaps  they  do  not  sufficiently 
allow.  But  I  am  not  going  to  press  that,  for  in  all 
probability  we  have  fallen  far  more  deeply  than 
we  are  aware.  We  need  our  brother's  help  very 
much. 

I  make  this  confession  quite  sincerely,  but  it  does  not 
in  the  least  alter  my  position.  If  we  try  to  safeguard 
our  spiritual  life  by  giving  up  everything  that  is  danger- 
ous, we  may  be  safe,  but  what  is  there  left  to  guard  ? 
The  business  man  is  in  danger  by  wealth,  and  the 
student  by  learning,  and  the  minister  by  succeeding  in 
his  effort  to  influence  his  people.  In  religion  we  give 
up  this  because  it  is  emotional,  and  that  because  it  is 
mechanical ;  this  because  it  is  modern,  and  that 
because  it  is  traditional.  SpirituaUty  is  endangered 
by  the  material ;  it  is  also  endangered  by  unreality. 
And  it  is  in  this  latter  respect  that  our  brethren  need 
as  much  as  we  do  the  help  of  the  clear-cut  objective 
'  This  '  of  the  Sacrament.  We  could  do  so  much  for 
one  another,  we  could  do  so  much  for  others,  if  only  we 
could  bring  these  two  sides  together,  and  in  order  to 
do  so  we  must  each  be  ready  to  admit  our  deficiencies 
as  well  as  to  maintain  our  gifts. 

I  urge  the  principle,  which  may  be  quite  well  called 

*  sacerdotalism,'  as  necessary  to  the  clear-cutness  of 
the  objective.  At  the  beginning  of  the  chapter  I 
pointed  out  that '  mediation,'  even  material  mediation, 
was  a  necessity  of  all  human  nature  and  thought. 
I  would  say  the  same  of  human  mediation,  that  is,  of 

*  ministry.*  We  are  made  in  weakness,  made  for  help  ; 
we  are  not  made  in  self-sufficiency.    Had  it  been  other- 


no    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


wise  it  would  not  have  been  *  necessary  that  one  man 
should  die  for  the  people.'  S.  Paul  puts  the  same  point 
— *  How  shall  they  believe  except  they  hear,  and  how 
shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?  ' 

'  This  however  is  said  of  preaching,  which  is  essen- 
tially a  human  act.  The  claim  that  a  mere  man,  not 
necessarily  even  a  good  man,  can  "  make  "  the  bodily 
Presence  of  Christ  is  to  claim  a  miracle,  to  do  magic' 
But  miracle  and  magic  are  precisely  the  words  which 
describe  what  we  are  all  doing,  every  day  of  our  lives. 
Some  one  spoke  to  me  of  the  love  of  God,  and  what  he 
said  burnt  into  my  veiy  life,  altered  its  whole  course. 
He  spoke  because  he  chose  to  speak  and  the  Spirit 
moved  him  thereto.  You  cannot  explain  it  otherwise. 
His  speaking  was  no  part  of  any  thought-process  of  my 
mind,  nor  do  I  for  one  moment  believe  it  could  be 
explained  by  a  calculation  of  the  relative  tensions  in 
the  cortex-cells  of  his  brain.  The  mechanism  of  the 
organ  does  not  explain  the  music  of  Mozart.  The 
order  of  the  vibrations  which  reached  my  ear  was  not 
manifesting  a  mere  atmospheric  law.  It  also  was  a 
miracle  of  the  speaker's  doing,  and  that  those  material 
sounds  should  have  so  changed  my  hfe  was  magic,  if 
any  one  chooses  to  call  it  so  and  I  have  no  better 
term  to  offer. 

I  grant  that  this  speaking  was  a  human  operation, 
but  we  shall  hardly  argue  that  while  we  can  do  miracles 
at  our  will,  God  cannot  do  them  by  His.  This  argu- 
ment of  the  human  operation  bears  directly  upon  the 
point  I  have  in  mind.  Let  us  compare  the  human 
operation  of  the  preacher  and  the  celebrant.  I  am 
asked  to  hear  a  sermon.  A  sermon  is  a  human  act. 
Therefore  I  want  to  know  who  is  the  preacher.  Is  he 
a  man  of  thought  ?    Has  he  any  ideas  worth  listening 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.    11.  iii 


to  ?  Can  he  express  them  well  so  that  I  shall  be  able 
to  follow  him  ? 

I  have  been  told  this  is  wrong.  The  preacher  is  the 
messenger  of  God,  and  it  is  the  Spirit  Who  speaks 
in  him.  I  accept  that  as  true,  and  yet  I  do  not 
admit  that  my  questions  are  necessarily  wrong.  The 
Spirit  of  God  spoke  still  truly  in  S.  Paul  and  S. 
John,  and  yet  the  messages  of  S.  Paul  and  S.  John, 
though  in  no  way  opposed,  are  yet  different  as  the 
messages  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  are  different.  Just 
because  preaching  is  a  human  operation,  although  the 
message  is  of  God,  each  man  receives,  not  God  Himself 
in  the  wholeness  of  the  meaning  of  self,  but  so  much  as 
the  man's  own  personal  limitation  is  capable  of  appre- 
hending. Perhaps  this  is  saying  too  much,  since  the 
Divine  Inspiration  does  carry  a  man  in  many  ways 
beyond  his  personal  limitation,  nevertheless  it  is 
substantially  true.  The  personal  factor  always  does 
act  under  limitation  ;  it  is  never  wholly  transcendent. 
Even  in  mere  narrative,  even  in  working  from  one  or 
two  common  sources,  even  where  Inspiration  is  beyond 
all  comparison  at  its  highest,  each  mind  sets  the  story 
forth  with  its  own  personal  differences  of  apprehension. 
This  is  the  Gospel  '  according  to  '  Matthew,  and  this 
'  according  to  '  Mark.  If  it  had  not  been  so,  then  there 
would  not  have  been  four  Gospels.  Only  Christ,  *  in 
Whom  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily/ 
suffers  no  limitation,  is  at  once  perfect  God  and  perfect 
Man,  sets  forth  the  very  Self-ness  of  God.  In  Him 
therefore  only  we  can  have  perfect  faith. 

The  preacher  in  his  sincerity  therefore  sets  before  us 
so  much  of  the  divine  truth  as  he  has  perceived,  and  I 
do  not  ask  for  nothing  how  much  this  is.  It  cannot  be 
the  whole  truth  ;  it  is  not  likely  to  be  even  pure  truth. 


112    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


As  it  happens,  I  have  been  a  preacher  myself,  and  I 
know  only  too  well  how  much  of  one's  own  ideas 
mingles  with  the  message.  As  a  listener  I  am  bidden 
to  '  try  the  spirits  whether  they  be  of  God.* 

In  the  Communion,  however,  I  care  nothing  who  the 
celebrant  is  so  long  only  as  he  has  authority  to  do  this 
thing.  It  is  his  ministry  only  to  add  the  Now  of  time 
to  the  This  of  the  bread  and  wine.  I  have  only  to  ask 
that  he  shall  do  rightly  that  which  he  is  bidden  to  do. 
It  is  nothing  to  me  reaUy  what  his  personal  character 
or  even  belief  may  be.  It  is  right  that  no  man  should 
be  appointed  to  this  ministry  who  is  not  a  good  and  holy 
man.  Irreverence,  unbelief,  unfitness  in  him  jar  and 
fret  me  by  their  disharmony,  but  while  they  may  hinder 
my  appreciation,  what  is  set  forth  and  given  is  the  Body 
of  Christ.  To  that  the  celebrant's  character  neither 
adds  nor  takes  away  anything  whatever. 

*  Sacerdotalism  !  '    Yes,  but  what  is  the  alternative  ? 

*  The  Presence  of  Christ  is  not  made  by  the  priest  upon 
the  altar  but  is  real  only  in  gift  to  the  communicant.' 
Then  I  would  ask,  is  it  given  only  to  the  devout  and 
faithful  communicant,  or  is  it  given  also  to  the  indevout 
and  thoughtless  ?  I  believe  there  are  some  who  do 
reply  that  the  Presence  is  given  to  all  alike.  A  position 
closely  akin  to  this  I  will  consider  in  Chapter  IX.,  but 
it  does  not  seem  to  me  quite  consistent  with  what — 
rightly  or  wrongly — I  took  to  be  the  Protestant  view 
that  the  significance  of  an  act  is  dependent  upon  the 
spiritual  devotion  with  which  it  is  performed.  Uni- 
versally, however,  so  far  as  my  experience  goes,  by 

*  communicant '  Protestants  have  always  meant  that 
the  Presence  was  real  only  to  the  worthy  communicant. 

Now  I  want  to  press  home  the  significance  of  these 
apparently  technical  and  impertinent  questions.    If  in 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.    II.  113 


the  Communion  there  is  no  special  Presence  at  all,  then 
of  course,  there  is  nothing  to  ask  about.  That  view 
we  considered  in  the  last  chapter.  We  are  now  con- 
sidering the  view  that  the  Sacrament  has  a  unique  and 
peculiar  sanctity,  that  in  some  way  Christ  is  there 
really  Present,  gives  Himself  to  be  our  food,  our 
strength,  our  life,  but  the  actual  cause  of  this  tremen- 
dous gift,  the  actual  thing  by  which  it  is  distinguished, 
is  our  coming  devoutly  and  worthily.  Apart  from  these 
qualities  there  is  no  Presence  in  the  special  sense  in 
which  we  are  using  the  word,  remembering,  of  course, 
that  we  are  not  denying  that  general  Presence  of  God 
in  operation  which  is  manifested  everywhere. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  maintained  that  this 
special  *  Presence  of  Christ '  was  being  made  dependent 
on  a  capacity  for  spiritual  concentration,  and  I  had  to 
argue  that  that  practically  constituted  a  human  merit. 
The  position  now  before  us  makes  no  secret  of  the 
matter.  In  the  Communion  Christ  comes  to  us  if  we 
are  worthy — if  we  are  fit,  if  we  deserve  it.  Is  this  in 
any  sort  of  accord  with  Christian  teaching  ?  How 
much  devoutness  and  worthiness  was  there  to  bring 
about  the  Incarnation  ?  What  becomes  of  our  Evan- 
gelical belief  of  the  worthlessness  of  all  human  righteous- 
ness ?  What  becomes  of  the  teaching  of  such  hymns 
as  *  Rock  of  Ages,'  or  *  Just  as  I  am,'  or  any  others  in 
which  our  fathers  delighted  ?  For  my  own  part  I 
accept  the  teaching  of  these  hymns  utterly.  If  I  may 
come  to  Christ  as  a  sinner,  as  blind,  as  one  sick,  I  may 
find  healing,  but  if  His  very  Presence  depends  on  my 
worthiness,  what  hope  is  there  for  me  or  for  any  man  ? 

Of  course  I  do  not  suppose  for  one  moment  that  any 
Evangelical  believes  or  means  that  the  Presence  of 
Christ  is  dependent  on  his  worthiness.    I  do  not  think 

H 


114    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


he  would  ever  have  impHed  it,  if  he  had  not  confused 
himself  by  playing  uncertainly  between  these  two 
theories  without  clearly  facing  the  consequences  of 
either.  Nevertheless,  here  is  the  plain  significance  of 
the  position  which  has  got  rid  of  '  Sacerdotalism  * — 
and  thereby  of  the  simple  act  by  which  the  priest  is 
bidden  to  mark  for  human  weakness  in  human  life  the 

*  now  '  of  Christ's  coming — in  order  to  condition  every- 
thing by  human  merits,  spiritual  efforts,  capacities, 
fitnesses,  devoutnesses.  We  will  not  be  dependent 
upon  a  priest.  No,  we  are  dependent  upon  ourselves, 
or — to  insert  the  saving  clause  I  discussed  elsewhere — 
upon  what  we  personally  have  received  of  God's  grace. 

The  question  of  TransubstantiatioHn  There  are  two 
further  objections  to  this  '  Catholic  '  theory.  The  first 
I  need  not  discuss  at  great  length,  but  it  has  been  said 
that  it  is  virtually  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation.  I  trust  I  have  already  shown  that 
I  am  solely  concerned  over  principles,  their  real  meaning 
and  application.  I  am  not  at  all  inclined  to  quarrel 
about  the  names  by  which  they  should  be  called, 
providing  those  names  are  not  seriously  misleading. 
For  that  reason  I  cannot  accept  the  term  Transubstan- 
tiation, which  does  not  describe  any  theory  of  Christ's 
Presence,  but  a  theory  about  bread  and  wine,  the 

*  substance  '  of  which  is  said  to  be  changed  into  the 
substance  of  Christ's  Body  and  Blood.  This  theory  I 
neither  hold  nor  have  ever  held. 

In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  hold  it  because,  as  our 
Church  puts  it,  the  theory  '  overthroweth  the  nature 
of  a  sacrament/  and  its  presentation  therefore  of  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation.  Christ  took  Manhood, 
took  our  flesh  ;  in  the  Resurrection  these  are  spiritual- 
ised or  glorified  in  that  His  bodily  Presence  was  no 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.    II.  115 


longer  bound  absolutely  by  the  same  material  con- 
ditions as  belonged  to  the  days  of  His  humiliation.  Yet 
although  there  was  a  change  or  transformation  of 
conditions  which  we  have  not  sufficient  experience  to 
understand  further,  we  do  not  speak  of  a  change  in 
the  '  substance  '  either  of  the  Humanity  or  of  the  Flesh, 
still  less  would  it  be  right  to  suppose  that  either  was 
changed  into  the  '  substance  '  of  the  Godhead.  At 
Capernaum  and  Emmaus,  that  which  was  of  the  flesh 
gave  to  the  spiritual  Godhead  the  This-ness  necessary 
for  human  realisation,  yet  the  natures  remain  distinct. 
So  also  we  believe  of  the  Communion.  The  Bread  does 
not  cease  to  be  Bread,  but  it  is  used  as  the  '  This  '  of 
the  Presence  of  the  Body  of  Christ. 

I  would  add,  secondly,  that  after  much  thought  I  am 
convinced  that  the  theory  of  Transubstantiation  is 
itself  meaningless  and  unintelligible.  And  I  say  so 
partly  for  the  sake  of  pointing  out  the  primary  differ- 
ence between  the  intelligibility  or  explicability  of  a 
theory  or  statement,  and  the  intelligibility  of  a  fact. 
There  is  no  necessity  that  facts  should  be  explicable 
at  all.  I  believe  that  Christ  is  God  and  Man,  that  the 
water  was  made  wine,  that  the  Body  of  the  Resurrection 
was  the  same  Body  which  suffered  though  transformed 
and  glorified.  In  the  same  way  I  believe  that  through 
the  Bread  and  Wine  this  glorified  Body  is  spiritually 
and  really  present  in  the  Communion.  If  I  were 
asked  to  explain  these  facts,  perhaps  I  could  say  a  great 
deal.  If  I  am  challenged  to  explain,  it  is  much  easier 
to  say  at  once  *  I  cannot.'  My  ability  to  explain  does  not 
in  the  least  affect  my  belief  one  way  or  another.  I 
cannot  explain  how  a  thinking  mind  can  have  a  body, 
nor  how  life,  which  is  not  a  force,  can  guide  and  direct 
forces.    Huxley,  whom  some  call  a  materialist,  declared 


ii6    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


that  it  was  fundamentally  inexplicable  how  a  physical 
nerve  movement  could  give  rise  to  anything  so  entirely 
different  as  sensation,  thought,  or  feeling.  A  theory, 
on  the  other  hand,  is  itself  an  explanation.  So  far  as  it 
goes,  it  at  least  must  be  explicable. 

To  express  my  point  more  shortly,  if  anyone  says 
'  the  water  became  wine,'  or  *  the  water  became  steam,' 
I  may  or  may  not  be  able  to  explain  scientifically  how 
it  happened.  Even  when  we  can  explain,  the  explana- 
tion will  not  go  very  far.  Some,  indeed,  maintain  that 
science  never  does  explain  how,  but  only  describes  in 
detail  what  happened.  However  this  may  be,  *  the 
water  boils  '  is  a  statement  the  clearness  of  which  is  in 
no  way  affected  by  scientific  knowledge.  If  anyone 
says  the  *  water  became  Transcendental  Idealism,' 
there  is  nothing  to  explain,  for  the  words  have  no  mean- 
ing at  all. 

In  the  eleventh  century,  then,  when  men  said  '  the 
substance  of  the  bread  was  entirely  changed,  though 
the  accidents  {i.e.  appearances)  remained,*  the  words 
had  a  very  crude  and  simple  meaning.  In  a  more 
thoughtful  age,  when  men  admitted  that  not  merely 
the  appearances,  but  all  the  properties  of  the  bread 
remained,  not  even  the  genius  of  S.  Thomas  Aquinas, 
though  he  held  himself  bound  to  say  that '  the  substance 
was  changed,'  could  make  the  phrase  bear  an  intelli- 
gible meaning. 

The  question  of  Idolatry.  I  thought  it  necessary  to 
reply  to  the  charge  of  Transubstantiation  because  I 
know  it  weighs  a  good  deal  on  some  people's  minds, 
but  it  is  not  a  very  interesting  question  except  for  the 
light  it  throws  upon  the  meaning  of  intelligibility.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  charge  of  idolatry,  which  is  also 
brought  against  the  CathoHc,  is  of  profound  significance. 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.   II.  117 


To  my  mind  an  idol  is  the  most  pathetic  thing  in  the 
world,  the  consummation,  the  last  despairing  expres- 
sion, of  the  futility  of  purely  human  thought.  All  the 
philosophers  have  ever  done  has  been  to  sum  up  in 
barren  nakedness  the  strivings  of  many  centuries  ;  yet 
the  idol  sums  them  up  much  better. 

Men  have  lived  and  died  and  their  children  after 
them  for  centuries,  stretching  out  hands  into  the 
darkness,  thinking  their  thoughts,  making  their  infer- 
ences, their  guesses,  their  ideas,  about  God  Who  was  all. 
Who  was  more  than  all  and  Who  yet  cared  for  them. 
They  struggled  because  they  so  little  realised,  and  they 
despaired  because  they  did  realise,  that  their  thought 
of  the  Whole  they  did  not  know  was  but  a  self-made 
abstraction  of  the  parts  they  did  know — an  abstraction 
made  infinite  by  being  made  more  barren  and  vague  of 
meaning.  From  his  thought  of  '  the  Infinite  '  Anaxi- 
mander  fled  to  *  Earth,'  as  the  real  *  Element '  on  which 
all  stood.  It  was  because  he  despaired  that  man  took 
the  stone,  the  post,  splashed  it  with  blood,  streaked  it 
with  red  paint,  carved  a  shape  into  it,  called  it  God. 
After  all  it  was  a  *  This.'  It  had  an  objectivity ;  it 
was  a  not-himself ;  it  was  more  than  a  generalised 
notion  of  his  own  mind.  This  need  of  externahty 
no  one  could  escape.  Even  the  Indian  Pantheist,  if  he 
would  keep  any  meaning  in  the  name  of  God,  since  he 
will  not  materialise  God  as  a  thing,  must  materialise 
Him  as  a  succession.  If  he  will  not  say  This,  he  must 
say  *  This  and  This  and  This.' 

Yet  it  was  nothing  more  than  the  expression  of  human 
despair.  Man  had  not  really  escaped  himself.  It  was 
he  who  had  chosen  and  made  the  idol,  given  it  all  the 
divinity  it  could  have — the  divinity  of  his  own  notion 
and  his  own  choice.    He  knew  it,  and  in  his  more 


ii8    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


solemn  moments  he  confessed  that  it  was  not  and  could 
not  be  God.    It  was  a  substitute  for  God. 

In  two  ways  therefore  idolatry  was  a  retrograde  and 
a  debasing  step. 

(1)  Just  so  far  as  it  appeared  to  satisfy  the  longing 
for  a  reahty  of  some  kind,  it  perpetuated,  it  gave  men 
a  reason  for  being  contented  with,  that  self-worship 
which  it  seemed  to  evade.  The  substitute  self -pro- 
vided is  only  effective  as  self-deceiving. 

(2)  It  was  the  true  purpose  of  God  that  He  would 
live  with  men,  whom  He  would  then  take  to  Himself. 
The  idea  of  the  idol  was  just  so  far  right  as  it  expressed 
the  conviction  that  God  was  not  the  same  as  the  idea 
we  formed  or  the  feelings  we  had  about  Him,  that  God 
was  not  ourselves  ;  it  was  at  least  a  protest  against 
the  self-worship  of  the  philosopher.  Yet  it  was  wholly 
wrong  in  that  it  stereotyped  the  externality  of  God 
from  His  worshippers  as  a  permanent  condition.  The 
idol  therefore  witnessed  to  men's  need  of  a  reality, 
which  was  more  than  a  subjective  imagining,  but  it 
offered  a  merely  deceitful  and  fictitious  satisfaction. 
It  offered  a  very  effective  witness  that  God  could  not 
or  would  not  dwell  in  man. 

As  we  reahse  all  this,  the  question  must  come  up — 
why  should  God  have  left  men  so  long  in  darkness  ? 
We  can  answer  in  three  ways — because  man  willed  it 
so,  because  it  was  inevitable,  because  God  loved  man, 
and  these  are  one  answer.  Self-choice  and  self -judg- 
ment are  inwrought  in  our  very  nature.  Therefore 
God  waited  over  man  with  exceeding  patience,  for  it 
was  only  when  the  last  lesson  was  learnt,  when  man  had 
done  all  and  despaired  of  all,  that  he  was  even  capable  of 
understanding  the  new  hope  that  while  man  cannot 
come  to  God,  God  comes  to  man.   All  history  and  our 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.   II.  119 


own  lives  teach  us  that  this  is  what  we  are  always 
forgetting,  always  needing  to  have  renewed  in  us. 

We  have  seen  above  how  the  Incarnation  therefore 
met  the  natural  craving  which  gave  rise  to  idolatry. 
Here  was  a  *  This/  that  something  *  not-himself  '  ;  it 
was  genuinely  and  not  imaginatively  more  than  an 
imagining,  just  because  it  had  not  been  constructed  by, 
it  was  something  given  to,  reflection  and  feeling.  In 
that  difference,  Christianity  brought  men  out  of  the 
first  great  evil  of  idolatry. 

The  second  evil  of  idolatry  is  met  by  the  Ascension. 
If  Christ  had  remained  on  earth,  His  material  Presence, 
once  so  necessary  to  the  manifestation  of  reality, 
would  have  become  the  witness  that  that  reality  was 
permanently  external.  He  must  have  been  in  a  place, 
near  some  people,  far  from  others,  present  at  one  time, 
not  at  another.  He  must  have  '  held  court '  in  some 
city.  He  must  have  had  a  curia.  *  If  I  go  not  away  the 
Spirit  will  not  come  unto  you,  but  if  I  depart  I  will 
send  Him  unto  you,'  for  '  the  Spirit  dwelleth  in 
you.' 

Now  let  us  turn  from  history  to  our  own  present 
lives.  The  Communion  meets  our  present  need  with 
that  which  is  first  external  and  '  objective,'  exactly  as 
historically  the  incarnation  met  the  need  of  man  as  a 
whole,  for  the  Communion  is  not  repeating  but  apply- 
ing, re-presenting  and  renewing.  Is  this  idolatry  ?  We 
will  begin  with  my  first  principle  of  idolatry,  which  I 
will  divide  up  a  little  more  closely,  for  I  have  a  right 
that  our  belief  should  be  considered,  and  if  necessary 
criticised,  as  we  hold  it. 

{a)  Idolatry  is  a  worship  of  that  which  is  not  God, 
which  is  known  not  to  be,  but  which  has  to  stand  for 
God.    Undoubtedly  the  worship  of  Christ  in  the  Holy 


120    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Communion  is  only  permissible  if  this  is  Christ  Himself, 
nor  could  it  be  defended  on  any  other  grounds. 

We  admit,  therefore,  that  the  Reality  of  the  Presence 
is  the  point  at  issue.  If  there  is  no  such  Real  Presence 
to  worship,  it  is  idolatry,  and  the  innocence  of  our 
intention  does  not  prove  the  innocence  of  the  act. 
And,  although  I  have  asserted  that  at  heart  the  idolater 
knows  his  idol  is  only  a  substitute,  certainly  with  a 
large  part  of  his  consciousness  he  actually  does  confuse 
the  two.  It  may  therefore  be  possible  that  we  also 
confuse  them. 

(b)  The  test,  however,  of  the  idolatrous  action  lies 
in  the  fact  pointed  out  by  the  Hebrew  prophets  that 
the  idol  is  self-made  and  self-chosen.  '  Ye  have  said 
unto  the  stone,  "  Be  thou  my  God."  '  If  anyone  should 
thus  choose  out  materials  such  as  seemed  good  to  him 
and  a  form  such  as  seemed  suggestive  to  him,  and 
invest  them  with  a  divine  presence  or  a  divine  power, 
I  admit  that  would  be  idolatry.  I  believe  I  could 
show  in  Christian  hfe  and  history  many  instances  of 
this  being  done  in  many  quarters,  for  *  supeistition  '  is 
not  confined  to  one  set  of  people.  Certainly  according 
to  our  belief  there  is  no  such  choice.  We  '  do  this  '  in 
re-presentation,  renewing,  of  the  Presence  of  Christ's 
death,  as  a  memorial  of  Himself,  because  He  has  so 
bidden  us,  but  it  is  not  properly  an  act  of  ours  at  all. 
It  is  not  our  coming,  nor  our  communion,  nor  our 
fitness,  which  achieve  anything,  except  that  we  so 
become  partakers  of  that  which  is  achieved.  The 
priest  also  has  neither  skill  nor  holiness  nor  privilege 
in  this  matter.  What  he  does  a  child  could  do.  That 
is  why  we  hold  so  strongly  to  '  consecration,'  and  to 
the  episcopally  ordained  priesthood.  The  ministering 
and  that  which  is  ministered  are  not  invested  with 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.  11. 


121 


power  by  us.  Both  alike  are  of  Christ  alone,  and  of  His 
Spirit  in  the  fulfilment  of  Christ's  promise. 

(c)  It  ought  to  be  recognised  on  both  sides  that  by 
many  who  share  the  *  Catholic  '  belief  the  charge  of 
idolatry  is  strongly  resented.  However  natural,  I  do 
not  think  resentment  is  right.  In  the  first  place, 
because  I  think  the  charge  is  only  too  true.  Idolatry 
deliberately  chosen  would  be  an  act  of  sin,  but  it  is 
also  a  principle,  a  temptation  or  evil,  which  lies  only  too 
near  to  us  all.  If  a  man,  whether '  Catholic  '  or  '  Protes- 
tant,' is  quite  sure  he  has  never  fallen  under  it,  and  that 
he  is  in  no  danger  from  it,  then  it  must  be  very  near  him 
indeed.  I  should  begin  to  fear  that  it  must  have  taken 
real  possession  of  him. 

In  the  second  place,  I  would  not  resent  it  because  I 
am  sure  it  is  brought  in  love.  There  are  people  every- 
where who  bring  such  charges  in  a  bitter  and  con- 
temptuous conviction  that  with  full  understanding  they 
are  competent  judges  of  their  brethren.  To  them  I 
have  nothing  whatever  to  say.  There  are  others  really 
grieved  about  it,  and  to  them  one  ought  to  explain 
oneself.  There  are  yet  others  to  whom  *  that  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  truth  on  both  sides  '  is  a  conviction,  and 
not  an  empty  common-place,  who  are  therefore  anxious 
to  learn  what  truth  there  is  which  God  may  not  yet 
have  shown  to  them.  What  others  call  an  '  accusation  * 
is  for  them  rather  a  question,  a  real  difficulty,  put 
somewhat  pointedly.  It  is  for  them  primarily  that  I 
am  writing. 

The  difficulty  they  feel  about  *  idolatry '  lies  in  the 
worship  of  the  material  bread  and  wine.  It  is  a 
difficulty  I  feel  as  much  as  anybody,  but  it  is  a  difficulty 
which  besets  us  as  Christians ;  it  is  a  difficulty  which 
besets  us  as  men  and  women  in  our  everyday 


122    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


life.  As  I  have  said,  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion is  full  of  such  difficulties,  because  it  is  the  most 
central  expression  of  Christian  principles,  and  Christian 
principles  are  full  of  difficulties,  for  they  meet  at  once 
all  the  varied  and  apparently  incongruous  sides  of 
human  life. 

*  The  Holy  Communion  is  so  very  material.'  Yes, 
and  the  Christian  is  so  very  material,  and  the  reason 
is  the  same,  for  life  is  so  very  material.  Love  is 
spiritual,  and  the  father  comes  home.  Mother  brings 
him  up  to  see  the  baby,  and  stands  by,  leaning  on  his 
shoulder,  while  he  takes  it  in  his  arms,  plays  with  it, 
makes  meaningless  baby  talk  which  means  so  much. 
I  who  am  a  '  religious  *  and  a  celibate  have  the  best 
right  to  say  that  there  is  nothing  on  God's  earth  nearer 
to  God's  heaven,  purer,  truer,  more  beautiful,  catching 
my  breath  even  to  write  the  words.  '  But  it  is  so  very 
material !  '  Would  the  father  be  more  loving,  more 
spiritual,  a  better  man,  if  he  refused  to  do  this  ?  God 
forbid.  Whatever  our  theories  may  be,  God's  people 
and  God's  earth  are  neither  made  that  way  nor  meant 
that  way. 

If  then,  with  the  women,  we  meet  Christ  in  the 
garden,  what  would  anyone  have  us  do  ?  Is  this  a 
time  to  talk  of  '  material  presences  '  and  their  '  essential 
divorce  from  the  spiritual  principle '  ?  Has  not  Our 
Own  come  to  us  as  He  said  He  would,  though  beyond 
all  our  belief,  when  our  belief  had  failed,  and  shall  we 
not  hold  Him  by  the  feet  and  worship  Him  ?  Are  we 
worshipping  flesh  and  blood  ?  Are  we  worshipping 
bread  and  wine  ?  God  forbid,  for  we  worship  God  and 
His  Christ.  Only  that  by  these  things,  as  then  so  now, 
Our  Own  has  come  to  us.  It  was  not  our  faith  that 
brought  Him — thanks  be  to  God,  for  even  now  we 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.    H  123 


believe  so  little.  Nay,  even  if  it  could  be  so,  must  we 
not  have  been  found  believing  in  our  faith  as  a  power 
so  mighty  that  it  could  summon  even  Christ  back  from 
the  grave  where  with  so  much  spice  we  had  lately 
buried  Him  ? 

Or  must  we,  on  pain  of  being  stoned  as  idolaters, 
believe  that  He  has  clean  gone  away  into  the  distant 
space  that  some  folks  call  heaven,  understood,  indeed, 
to  be  still  operating,  but  never  to  be  seen  again  save 
by  those  of  great  and  mystic  spiritual  power  ?  Yet 
we  did  hear  tidings  of  a  place  and  way  where  even  we 
common-place  people,  driven  by  hard  material  labour, 
very  little  capable  of  spiritual  attention,  to  whose 
unimaginative  stupidity  the  joy  of  spiritual  communion 
comes  so  rarely,  might  yet  again  behold  and  worship 
Him.    Was  it  after  all  a  lying  rumour  ? 

I  admit  once  more  that  if  this  be  merely  an  external 
vision,  perhaps  it  had  better  never  have  been  given. 
That  we  should  go  on  through  life  in  darkness,  waiting 
for  something  which  God  does  not  see  fit  to  give,  may 
on  cold  reflection  be  better  than  that  we  should  come 
into  His  Presence  at  intervals,  only  to  be  separated 
again,  though  I  admit  that  it  is  a  very  cold  reflection 
indeed.  But  then  we  are  speaking  of  a  Communion. 
The  Presence  of  Christ  is  given  in  order  that  it  may  be 
received,  but  before  it  is  '  received  '  it  must  be  already 
present  that  it  may  be  received. 

To  say  that  the  Presence  is  made  by  reception  is  to 
use  the  words  in  a  sense  for  which  it  is  almost  as 
difficult  to  find  a  meaning  as  it  is  for  the  phrases  of 
Transubstantiation.  The  moment,  however,  the  ques- 
tion goes  beyond  the  verbal  point,  it  reaches  a  matter 
on  which  I  feel  far  more  clear.  That  any  benefits 
whatever  from  that  reception  are  qualified  and  con- 


124    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


ditioned  by  the  state  of  the  recipient  I  somewhat 
sorrowfully  admit.  That  the  profane  receive  no 
benefit,  but  only  the  heavier  judgment  I  know.  That 
those  in  whom  love  burns  most  strongly,  in  whom 
humility  and  self-surrender  have  grown  in  depth  and 
reahty,  receive  richly,  I,  who  barely  know  the  names  of 
those  things,  admit  fully,  though,  as  I  have  said,  sorrow- 
fully. 

I  let  these  words  stand  as  I  wrote  them,  and  because 
I  wrote  them,  but  no,  I  do  not  mean  to  sorrow,  I  rejoice 
if  others  are  nearer  God  than  I.  It  is  enough  for  me 
and  more  than  I  deserve  that  I  may  find  my  Lord  at 
all.  If,  however,  I  am  told  that  even  that  initial  fact 
depends  on  any  effort  or  capacity  of  my  own,  depends 
in  any  degree  on  my  spiritual  state  or  force,  this,  may 
God  help  me,  I  will  not  believe,  for  if  I  did  I  should 
despair  utterly.  It  is  hard  for  me  to  make  any  response 
to  Christ,  to  find  the  energy  to  worship  Him  or  the  faith 
to  believe  in  Him,  when  He  does  come.  If  I  am  also 
to  find  the  energy  and  faith  to  fetch  Him,  I  must  give 
it  up.  For  myself  and  for  men  like  myself,  to  whom 
all  spiritual  effort  is  intensely  difficult,  the  whole 
Gospel  is  a  bitter  mockery  front  and  back.  If  this  is 
Evangelicalism  I  must  leave  it  to  those  who  can  manage 
such  things.  And  in  my  inmost  heart  I  have  no  wish 
to  do  anything  else.  I  belong  to  a  much  simpler, 
rougher,  less  imaginative,  more  common-place  order  of 
mind,  and  I  cannot  bear  the  thought  of  being  separated 
as  if  one  was  something  special. 

In  saying  this  I  know  that  I  am  only  proclaiming 
the  most  burning  convictions  of  all  Evangelicals,  even 
the  most  '  Protestant.'  By  EvangehcaHsm  they  do 
not  mean  anything  but  just  this.  Beside  their  love  for 
simple  and  common  souls,  mine  is  a  starveling  thing  of 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.  U. 


125 


words.  Yet,  just  because  of  the  love  I  know  they 
bear,  why  have  they  made  this  message  so  difficult 
to  us  ?  Why  have  they  thrown  away  that  tremendous 
lever,  which,  as  it  would  seem  to  a  plain,  even  if  stupid, 
reader  of  Scripture,  Christ  Himself  put  into  their 
hands  and  the  Apostles  used,  the  simplest  act  witnessing 
to  the  simple  fact  on  which  all  spiritual  and  personal 
realisation  can  be  based  ? 

As  having  been  a  '  Protestant,'  I  might  say,  I  think 
that — I  prefer  to  say,  is  it  not  true  that — many 
Evangelicals  do  suffer  in  practice  from  that  religious 
self-centredness  which  would  seem  to  be  inevitable 
where  so  much  is  made  to  turn  upon  personal  realisation 
and  experience  ?  Of  those  to  whom  I  write  I  know  it  is 
very  httle  true.  But  much  as  I  long  for  it  I  know  they 
cannot  give  me  any  help  at  all  in  the  spiritual  develop- 
ment I  need  unless  they  are  willing  to  begin  with  me 
just  from  this  simple  ground.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I 
did  begin  just  where  they  are,  and  learnt  in  due  time 
how  impossible  it  was  for  a  character  so  entirely 
common-place  to  maintain  permanently  a  state  so 
special. 

I  need  not  trouble  anybody  with  my  own  personal 
failings  or  wants.  In  the  *  Catholic  party  '  there  are 
many  men  of  a  spirituality  not  less  than  can  be  found 
anywhere.  I  can  have  and  have  had  their  help  for  my- 
self. But  I  am  not  now  speaking  of  or  for  any  party. 
I  am  thinking  of  the  common,  average  herd,  and  I  have 
no  desire  to  speak  except  as  one  of  them.  I  know 
how  many  are  thrown  back  from  religion  because 
they  have  learnt  to  think  of  it  as  a  matter 
of  spiritual  experiences,  emotions,  states,  which 
they  suspect  to  be  psychological,  but  which  they 
either   know   they   cannot   reach,  or  which  they 


126    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


have  found  by  experience  they  cannot  retain.  I 
know  that  the  EvangeHcal  leaders  have  protested 
against  this  misapprehension.  They  are  as  anxious  as 
we  are  to  insist  that  Christianity  is  first  of  all  faith  in 
God,  in  God's  manifestation  of  Himself,  in  the  Atoning 
Death  of  Christ,  in  the  supernatural  gift  of  His  Presence 
to  His  own,  and  not  a  feeling.  Yet  the  impression 
remains,  for  while  protestations  reach  the  few,  the 
principles  involved  in  the  system  of  religious  practice 
are  felt  by  all.  And  so  long  as  that  faith  in  an  objective 
Presence  of  actual  fact  is  set  aside  in  favour  of  a 
Presence,  which — whether  subjective  or  objective — has 
no  presentation  except  subjectively  as  a  Presence 
reached  '  in  the  word,'  that  is,  by  meditation,  in  thought 
and  feeling,  so  long  for  the  many  that  impression  will 
remain. 

Does  the  CathoHc  system  succeed  any  better  ?  I 
could  answer  both  yes  and  no,  for  here  the  consequences 
of  our  divisions  come  in  disastrously,  as  I  think  I  can 
show  if  we  consider  two  different  applications. 

(1)  Wherever  Catholicism,  as  in  Roman  Catholic 
countries,  has  been  steadily  and  consistently  appHed, 
it  will  hardly  be  denied  that  its  definiteness  does 
maintain  a  curiously  steady  hold  upon  the  roughest, 
most  ignorant,  least  naturally  religious  people,  just 
those  whom  we  find  it  so  hard  to  retain  permanently. 
Yet  when  those  very  people  progress  in  education, 
civilisation  and  independence,  there  it  is  apt  to  fail 
terribly,  as  in  France.  Where  people  do  not  progress, 
as  in  South  America,  the  religion,  even  while  it  con- 
tinues, is  often  very  ineffective  and  unreal,  spiritually 
and  morally. 

(2)  In  England  there  is  a  more  complex  situation, 
since  Cathohcism  has  been  applied  much  less  con- 


THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.  II. 


127 


sistently.  Certainly  many  Church  people,  instead  of 
using  forms  as  the  foundation  of  a  spiritual  Hfe,  are 
afraid  to  go  beyond  them,  because  that  would  be 
'  emotionalism,'  in  other  words  because  it  is  the  opposi- 
tion road.  Of  course  there  is  no  need  it  should  be  so, 
but  the  sense  of  opposition  always  does  tend  to  one- 
sidedness. 

And  this  opposition  produces  very  marked  results  in 
other  ways.  I  must  admit  that  our  Anglican  Catholi- 
cism, of  which  I  shall  have  more  to  say  hereafter,  though 
it  has  tried  to  combine  both  sides  of  the  Christian  life, 
has  not  been  very  effective.  I  do  not  admit  that  it  is 
a  failure.  It  has  been  of  the  greatest  help  to  multi- 
tudes of  people,  but  its  helpfulness  depends  on  their 
learning  to  believe  in  and  to  worship  a  supernatural 
gift  of  Christ's  Presence.  Why  should  it  be  judged  a 
thing  incredible  with  us  that  God  Who  raised  the  dead 
should  thus  give  Himself  ?  Yet  when  we  find  many 
good  Christians,  whom  we  all  rightly  respect,  calling  it 
Idolatry,  Romanism,  Sacerdotalism,  simple  people 
readily  turn  suspicious  and  sceptical.  They  do  not 
quite  know  what  the  words  mean  and  they  have  not 
much  power  of  discrimination,  but  the  Gospel  thus 
presented  looks  too  living,  too  trenchant,  and  though 
not  naturally  inclined  to  unbelief,  they  are  afraid  to 
commit  themselves  to  a  supernatural  which  comes  so 
near,  makes  itself  so  real,  as  that. 


PART  II. 
A  SYNTHESIS  OF  PRINCIPLES. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
FREEDOM. 

I  HAVE  tried  now  to  explain  what  I  take  to  be  the 
necessary  element  of  our  own  Church,  Catholic  or 
Episcopahan  position,  and  why  it  seems  to  us  so 
necessary.  I  am  not  entirely  without  hope  that  some 
of  those  who  differ  from  us  may  see  in  it  something 
worth  considering.  Further  than  that  I  should  not 
venture  to  go.  I  know  the  Non-Conformists  have  con- 
victions of  their  own  not  less  precious  to  them  than 
ours  are  to  us.  They  have  for  a  long  time  held  that 
those  convictions  required  a  repudiation  of  our  con- 
victions. I  have  tried  to  suggest  that  that  was  not 
so.  Claims  to  have  '  proved  '  this  and  that  are  at  any 
time  foolish  and  irritating.  I  do  not  ask  Non-Con- 
formists to  admit  that  their  repudiation  was  wrong, 
but,  if  I  ask  them  even  to  admit  that  it  might  be,  am  I 
prepared  to  admit  that  we  may  have  been  equally 
wrong  in  repudiating  some  of  their  convictions  ?  Am 
I  prepared  to  admit  that  their  convictions  are  also 
*  necessary  '  ? 

In  the  abstract  it  will  be  observed  that  I  have  already 
admitted  it.  I  have  urged  that  if  we  find  two  bodies 
of  men  in  acute  and  prolonged  difference,  there  are  two 
lines  open  to  us.  (a)  Our  first  natural  assumption  is 
that  one  of  them  is  right  and  the  other  has  been  led 


132    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


astray.  If,  however,  after  three  centuries  both  bodies 
are  still  passionately  in  earnest,  full  of  vitality,  is  it 
not  wiser  to  suspect  (b)  that  they  have  each  hold  of 
something  very  solid.  In  the  abstract,  I  think  we 
should  all  come  to  this  conclusion,  but  the  abstractions 
are  not  very  helpful. 

I  am  therefore  driven  to  try  to  state  what  exactly  it 
is  which,  as  I  conceive,  the  Non-Conformists  have  to 
give  to  the  Church,  what  they  hold  which  we  need. 
I  am  not  going  to  give  that  position  as  I  think  it  ought 
to  be,  but  as  I  have  actually  learnt  it.  I  shall  do  it 
very  badly,  for  it  is  a  very  risky  undertaking  to  state 
another  man's  convictions  for  him,  nevertheless  I  must 
take  that  risk. 

(a)  I  must  see  whether  I  have  learnt  the  Non-Con- 
formist position  rightly,  and  even  if  I  make  mistakes, 
it  may  not  be  unhelpful  to  my  brethren  to  see  how  far 
someone,  approaching  from  without,  has  been  able  to 
understand  them,  {b)  My  main  object  is  to  ask  how 
far  our  principles  are  really  at  variance,  and,  since  it  is 
I  who  am  asking,  I  can  only  deal  with  the  two  sides  so 
far  as  I  can  understand  them. 

The  questions  we  have  so  far  discussed  have  been 
questions  of  faith,  questions  of  spiritual,  vital,  personal 
religion,  concerned  with  the  access  of  the  soul  to  God. 
The  questions  on  which  we  are  most  obviously  divided, 
however,  are  ecclesiastical.  They  have  their  spiritual 
and  personal  side,  to  which  we  must  look,  but  they  are 
primarily  questions  of  organisation. 

To  us,  on  the  Catholic  side,  the  unity  of  the  Church 
appeals  as  a  great  prior  fact.  The  individual  finds  a 
place  in  it ;  it  ministers  to  him,  or  rather  he  lives  in  it. 
As  a  unity,  it  presents  itself  as  a  great  authoritative 
organisation,  covering  the  whole  world,  including  all 


FREEDOM 


133 


mankind  in  idea  and  in  God's  purpose  if  not  in  fact. 
I  want  to  lay  some  little  stress  on  this  distinction,  for 
if  we  are  ever  to  understand  other  people  or  ourselves 
we  must  be  always  ready  to  consider  the  ideal  first 
and  by  itself,  even  though  we  cannot  forego  the  light 
and  duty  of  asking  also  after  the  significance  of  its 
practical  results — how  far  they  are  failures  incidental 
to  human  weakness,  and  how  far  they  come  from  some 
defect  in  the  principle. 

We  Catholics  have  one  common  ideal.  In  practice 
it  has  been  broken  through  over  questions  of  methods. 
The  Roman  regards  that  organisation  as  essentially  a 
centralised  authority.  This  alone,  he  contends,  can 
give  a  practical  unity.  The  Anglican  takes  what 
might  be  considered  an  aristocratic  view.  The  Church 
is  a  great  republic,  whose  King  is  Christ,  whose  repre- 
sentatives are  the  bishops  in  all  the  world.  It  is  a  much 
more  difficult  ideal.  It  is  a  very  good,  though  often 
painful,  discipline  to  look  at  our  own  position  as  others 
see  it.  I  am  quite  willing  to  admit  that  we  cannot 
point  to  Catholicism  as  an  obviously  triumphant 
success.  Anglicanism  in  especial  has  shown  a  hesita- 
tion and  an  uncertainty  of  principle  which  have  brought 
her  neither  power  nor  even  respect.  I  think  I  can 
show  presently  why  this  was  almost  inevitable.  But 
if  I  thus  submit  to  criticism,  perhaps  our  brethren  will 
allow  us  also  to  be  critical. 

To  our  eyes,  the  non-episcopalian  bodies  present  a 
picture  of  something  like  utter  confusion,  a  vast  un- 
numbered mass  of  sects.  Possibly,  on  second  thoughts, 
that  may  be  a  little  exaggerated.  We  can  see  three,  or 
perhaps  four,  great  outstanding  bodies — Presbyterian, 
Congregational,  Wesleyan,  and  Baptist.  They  have 
different  principles  and  methods.    One  has  a  settled 


134    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


ministry,  and  a  considerable  unity.  Another  has  no 
formal  unity.  The  third  has,  we  understand,  an 
excellent  organisation.  These  bodies  are,  however, 
rather  groups  of  bodies,  and  beyond  them  still  lies  the 
great  mass  of  smaller  bodies,  ever  multiplying.  But 
the  confusion,  to  our  minds,  is  not  merely  ecclesiastical. 
They  differ  theologically.  They  are  all  open  to  '  tend- 
encies,' and  they  seem  to  have  very  little  concern 
where  those  tendencies  will  carry  them.  We  no  doubt 
are  subject  to  the  same  forces,  but,  though  we  may 
differ  as  to  what  Church  doctrine  does  teach,  and 
stiU  more  as  to  what  it  ought  to  teach,  we  have  as 
*  Catholics  '  at  least  a  behef,  an  ideal,  that  there  is  a 
Church  teaching. 

Probably  I  shall  be  told  that  this  statement  shows 
an  entire  miscomprehension  of  the  Non-Conformist 
position.  And  I  have  no  doubt  it  does.  It  is  precisely 
my  contention  that  neither  of  us  understands  what  the 
other  really  means,  and  that  it  is  just  this  mutual 
understanding  which  it  is  so  vital  we  should  get. 

Let  us  consider  the  actual  position.  We  will  leave 
theological  questions  on  one  side.  For  the  present  we 
will  assume  that  we  are  agreed  in  our  evangelical  faith. 
We  have  then  to  consider  the  practical  or  ecclesiastical 
question.  The  Non-Conformists  claim  that  they  are  an 
integral  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  their  unity  as 
bodies  constitutes  a  valid  Church  unity.  This  puts  us 
in  a  very  difficult  position,  for  if  we  admit  that  any 
number  of  divided  bodies  and  of  people  who  do  not 
belong  to  a  body  at  all,  are  equally  in  the  right  way  and 
in  the  true  unity,  we  should  seem  to  be  admitting  that 
there  was  no  way  and  no  unity  which  was  of  Christ. 
It  is  not  that  we  claim  to  be  right  and  everybody  else 
wrong,  but  that  we  dread  any  admission  which  would 


FREEDOM 


135 


imply  that  there  was  no  right.  Further,  if  we  admit 
that  the  Non-Conformist  bodies  are  vaHd  Churches, 
then  we  should  admit  that  a  Church  could  be  con- 
stituted without  those  sacraments  which  we  hold  to  be 
necessary,  and  without  that  ministry  which  we  hold  to 
be  necessary  to  the  sacraments.  Plainly  in  the  face  of 
my  own  arguments,  I  for  one  could  not  make  that 
admission. 

If,  however,  I  will  not  admit  the  Non-Conformist 
claim,  I  am  also  not  going  to  deny  it.  I  am  convinced, 
and  I  believe  all  our  experience  proves,  that  if  we 
begin  arguing  '  Which  is  the  Church  ?  '  we  shall  argue 
for  ever.  We  shall  not  find  anything,  and  we  may  lose 
our  tempers.  But  are  we  not  all,  or  at  least  some  of 
us,  agreed  that  our  present  divisions  do  not  represent 
the  Unity  which  is  according  to  God's  Will  ?  We  have 
still  a  great  deal  to  seek.  If  we  would  seek  it  together, 
we  must  be  ready  to  learn  from  one  another.  Our  long 
controversies,  our  long  habit  of  protest  against  this 
and  that,  makes  mutual  learning  very  difficult.  If  we 
begin  with  a  new  argument  about  which  is  most  in  the 
wrong,  and  whose  fault  it  is  that  we  are  separated,  I 
fear  the  separation  is  likely  to  go  on  a  long  time. 

We,  as  Catholics,  have  always  believed  that  unity 
must  somehow  centre  round  the  historic  episcopate. 
The  Non-Conformists  in  general  will  not  accept  our 
view.  I  believe  that  some  have  confessed,  perhaps 
more  have  an  undefined  feeling,  that  in  the  end  it  may 
be  found  so,  though  they  do  not  see  how  and  are  not 
prepared  to  accept  Episcopacy  at  present  or  in  its 
present  form.  I  am  not,  however,  going  to  press  that 
point.  Presently  I  may  suggest  reasons  for  it,  just 
now  I  am  more  concerned  with  the  reasons  for  the 
rejection.    If  I  have  understood  them  aright,  the  Non- 


136    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Conformists  would  say  that  the  criticisms  we  have 
passed  on  their  divisions,  and  the  Episcopal  theory  we 
put  forward  as  a  basis  for  unity,  only  showed  that  we 
and  they  were  living  in  two  different  worlds.  It  is 
just  this  which  makes  me  hopeful.  When  men  differ 
on  some  narrow  technical  point,  the  issue  must  be 
faced  as  it  stands.  A  world  provides  room  for  many 
possibilities.  Certainly  if  someone  lives  in  a  world,  like 
Mars,  which  the  rest  of  us  cannot  reach,  we  must  and 
we  can  afford  to  let  them  alone.  If  it  is  another  world, 
like  China,  which  we  can  get  to,  it  will  no  doubt  be  hard 
to  understand,  but  it  is  sure  to  be  full  of  things  worth 
understanding. 

I  do  not  approach  the  question  as  an  expert,  but  as  a 
learner.  And  I  seem  to  myself  to  have  learnt  that  it 
is  our  very  ideal  of  Church  unity,  that  very  conception 
of  a  great  organisation,  which  seems  to  us  so  attractive, 
but  which  seems  to  Non-Conformists  so  repellent.  It 
is  not  so  much  that  they  object  to  our  form  of  organisa- 
tion as  that  they  dread  the  ideal  of  an  organised  unity. 
They  object  to  our  form  of  organisation  just  because 
it  implies  that  the  form  is  a  basis  of  unity. 

I  am  afraid  that  our  brethren  will  think  us  very 
stupid  and  very  dense  not  to  have  understood  that  long 
ago,  seeing  how  often  they  have  explained  it.  Stupidity 
is  a  very  common  disease,  but  I  think  there  are  some 
excuses,  and  they  are  somewhat  important. 

(i)  We  have  been  engaged  in  a  long  controversy,  and, 
as  people  will,  we  have  argued  about  everything.  We 
have  argued  about  establishments  and  '  book  prayers,' 
the  characters  of  Archbishop  Laud  and  Oliver  Cromwell, 
transubstantiation  and  the  origin  of  tithes,  baptismal 
regeneration  and  the  legislation  of  Henry  VI 11.  It 
would  be  amazing  if  we  knew  what  we  meant  ourselves, 


FREEDOM 


137 


and  quite  impossible  we  should  know  what  anyone 
else  meant. 

(2)  Again,  our  own  position  is  essentially  a  definite, 
a  fixed,  a  '  static  '  position.  Perhaps  we  are  not  all 
agreed  about  what  it  is,  but  disagreement  about  our 
position  is  much  easier  to  understand  than  the  ideal, 
which  is  not  '  a  position,'  but  an  ideal  of  freedom  and 
movement  as  such  and,  so  to  speak,  for  their  own 
sakes. 

(3)  The  fact  is  that  both  views  are  much  more  com- 
plex, and  therefore  confusing,  than  either  of  us  realise. 
We  Catholics  believe  in  order,  but  we  should  resent, 
even  the  strongest  Roman  Catholics  resent,  the  charge 
of  not  believing  in  freedom.  The  Protestants  believe 
in  freedom,  but  they  also  would  resent  the  charge  of  not 
believing  in  order.  Indeed,  many  of  their  bodies 
would  claim  that  their  organisation  was  in  practice 
more  orderly  and  effective  than  our  own.  I  do  not 
know  enough  to  admit  that  it  is  so,  but  I  do  know 
enough  to  make  me  very  chary  of  denying  it. 

This  adds  to  our  perplexity.  The  Presbyterians  have 
a  settled  ministry,  and  they  would  not — we  imagine — 
feel  the  same  objection  to  an  organised  unity  which  the 
Congregationalists  might.  The  Wesley ans,  who  have  an 
effective  organisation  but  not  the  same  ideas  about  a 
ministry,  would  feel  the  objection  in  a  different  way. 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  to  confuse  us,  but  under 
all  these  difficulties  of  denominational  character  there 
are  four  points  which  have  persuaded  me  that  this 
question  of  '  freedom  '  is  the  real  matter  at  issue. 

(1)  However  the  various  bodies  may  differ,  they  are 
increasingly  ready  to  recognise  one  another's  systems. 

(2)  They  are  equally  ready  to  extend  that  recognition 
to  all  the  smaller  and  newer  bodies,  or  even  to  those 


138    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


individuals  who  do  not  care  to  include  themselves  in  a 
denominational  body  at  all.  This  fraternal  toleration 
extends  to  anything  that  can  be  called  genuinely 
Christian,  and  there  is  an  increasing  tendency  to  ex- 
tend it  to  anything  which  will  call  itself  Christian  in 
any  sense.  Beliefs  to  which  Evangelicals  of  fifty  or 
even  twenty  years  ago  would  have  refused  fellowship 
are  now  readily  admitted. 

(3)  While  '  recognition  '  is  thus  readily  accorded  even 
to  beliefs  which  are  not  mutually  consistent,  there  is  an 
inevitable  and  quite  natural  disinclination  to  extend  it 
to  *  Catholics,*  whether  Anglican  or  Roman.  The  new 
spirit  of  union  may  include  almost  any  doctrine  which 
a  man  holds  for  himself,  but  by  the  very  nature  of  that 
union  it  cannot  include  what  is  held  as  necessarily  true, 
as  a  truth  by  which  all  are  bound. 

(4)  There  is  one  specially  theological  movement 
which  throws  a  deeply  interesting  light  upon  the 
principle  underlying.  In  many  Protestant  circles — I 
am  afraid  it  must  be  admitted — there  is  a  growing 
uncertainty  about  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ. 
There  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  growing  conviction  of  the 
reality  and  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Whom  the  Creeds 
call  '  the  Giver  of  Life.' 

From  all  these  considerations  I  believe  that  I  shall 
be  right  to  infer  that  the  distinctive  spirit  of  modern 
Non-Conformity,  the  spirit  or  ideal  which  is  gradually 
absorbing  all  others,  is  the  ideal  which  I  call '  freedom  ' 
purely  as  such,  the  ideal  which  a  recent  writer  calls 
'  life.' 

To  do  justice  to  Non-Conformity,  I  must  of  course 
emphasise  the  word  '  distinctive.'  I  characterised  the 
Catholic  position  as  distinctively  definite ;  I  am  sure 
it  would  be  resented  if  I  said  the  opposite  side 


FREEDOM 


139 


was  deliberately  indefinite.  Most  Non-Conformists,  or 
many,  do  hold  certain  convictions  very  strongly,  but 
I  think  they  would  admit  that  their  tendency  is  to 
indefiniteness,  and  their  dangers  would  lie  on  this  side. 
To  the  doctrinal  questions  we  will  return  again. 

Our  immediate  concern  is  with  the  ecclesiastical 
question,  in  which  the  need  of  *  the  definite  '  is  repre- 
sented not  by  convictions,  but  by  order  or  system.  I 
have  admitted  that  the  great  Non- Conformist  bodies 
are  not  inferior  to  us  in  the  effectiveness  of  their  system  ; 
I  shall  not  even  quarrel  if  they  chose  to  maintain  that 
their  systems  are  superior  to  ours.  Nevertheless,  they 
have  in  two  ways  insured  that  organisation  shall  be 
subordinated  to  the  spirit  of  freedom. 

(1)  The  organisation  exists  necessarily  for  all  actions 
to  be  taken  in  common,  but  that  organisation  is  in 
principle  democratic.  The  powers  given  to  the  officials 
are  powers  which  belong  to  the  body  as  such. 

(2)  Although  the  individual  is  bound  by  the  decisions 
of  the  body,  he  is  only  bound  in  his  capacity  as  a 
member.  The  modem  spirit  would  not  hold  that  he 
was  bound  to  remain  in  the  body.  It  might  not  like 
a  man  leaving  his  own  body,  but  if  an  individual  or 
group  of  individuals  consider  that  the  cause  is  suffi- 
ciently serious  to  justify  the  step,  it  would  not  be 
denied  that  they  had  a  right  to  separate  themselves. 

So  far  as  my  ignorance  goes  I  believe  all  Non-Con- 
formists are  unanimous  about  the  '  Principle  of  Demo- 
cracy.' I  am  not  quite  sure  that  all  would  agree  so 
readily  to  what  I  might  call  the  '  Right  of  Schism '  or 
of  Secession,  for  I  do  not  mean  Schism  in  an  offensive 
sense.  The  Congregationalists,  as  I  suppose,  would 
admit  it  readily.  The  Presbyterians  of  the  old  school 
would  certainly  have  demurred  to  it,  but  I  think  I 


140    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


am  justified  in  taking  it  as  the  second  fundamental 
of  modern  Non-Conformity.  Personal  liberty  is  an 
obvious  consequence  of  voluntary  union  as  opposed  to 
essential  unity.  It  is  also  a  necessary  consequence  of 
mutual  recognition. 

Now  in  both  ways  this  is  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
Catholic  principle  of  Episcopacy,  (i)  Even  if  our 
bishops  were  appointed  by  the  Church  body  itself — 
as  in  theory  they  are  in  all  cases,  and  in  most  cases 
they  are  in  practice — it  still  remains  that  the  bishop 
has  in  principle  an  authority  from  God  which  he  does 
not  receive  from  the  congregation.  Even  if  he  holds 
it  in  order  as  the  servant  of  the  congregation,  it  is  still 
a  power  which  the  body  cannot  of  itself  bestow. 

This  makes  a  very  marked  difference.  Once  the 
bishop  is  established,  however  he  was  appointed, 
nothing  can  be  done  without  him.  He  is  the  judge  of 
the  spiritual  calling. 

(2)  The  grip  of  the  principle  is  finally  fixed  by  the 
Church  idea  of  unity.  Individuals  and  minorities  must 
be  content  with  their  share  of  what  is  provided  for  the 
whole.    They  are  not  free  to  try  other  alternatives. 

In  practice,  of  course,  the  system  is  both  better  and 
worse  than  its  ideal.  It  is  unfair  to  judge  it  by  the 
abuses  from  which  the  Non-Conformist  systems  also 
are  by  no  means  free.  Yet  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
concentration  of  power  in  official  hands  provides  an 
easy  mark  for  the  introduction  of  political  influence  and 
acquired  rights  of  patronage,  which  are  all  the  more 
fatal  because  the  relief  of  secession  is  cut  off.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  single  pastor  is  far  more  amenable  to 
popular  feeling  than  the  legal  theory  of  his  office  would 
suggest,  and  his  personal  responsibility  offers  a  more 
effective  defence  against  the  pressure  of  *  influential 


FREEDOM 


141 


patrons  '  than  is  often  provided  by  a  nominally  demo- 
cratic system. 

The  practical  advantages  and  disadvantages  may  be 
very  evenly  balanced  but  we  need  not  discuss  them. 
Episcopacy  is  put  forward  as  necessary,  that  is  to  say  as 
a  principle  and  not  as  a  convenience ;  it  must  be  so 
considered.  Non-Conformists  repudiate  Episcopacy  on 
the  principle  that  no  man  has  a  right  by  his  human  judg- 
ment to  fetter  the  free  action  of  God's  Spirit. 

For  my  own  part  I  appreciate  very  deeply  the  serious- 
ness of  this  contention.  In  the  abrupt  form  in  which  I 
have  stated  it,  the  contention  rests  upon  two  assump- 
tions. It  assumes  that  the  individual  acts  under  the 
influence  of  God's  Spirit,  while  the  bishop  uses  only 
human  judgment.  That,  of  course,  would  make  an  end 
of  all  government  whatever.  Missionary  committees, 
synods,  Connections,  elders,  are  constantly  engaged  in 
judging  what  believes  itself  to  be  a  *  call  of  God.' 
Certainly  the  point  wants  some  consideration  both  on 
the  side  of  the  authority  and  on  that  of  the  individual. 

We  will  take  the  authority  first.  I  admit  that  the 
claim  of  the  bishop  is  quite  different  from  that  of  the 
other  authorities  referred  to.  The  latter,  in  general, 
act  only  on  behalf  of  their  own  organisation.  They  do 
not  profess  to  have  authority  otherwise  over  the  free- 
dom of  the  individual.  He  can  still  give  his  '  message  ' 
in  his  own  way.  The  idea  of  the  Church  makes  the 
authority  of  the  bishop  final,  except  so  far  as  one 
bishop  may  permit  in  one  diocese  what  another  forbids 
in  his.  It  is  this  absolute  and  final  authority,  as  of 
principle  rather  than  of  administrative  necessity,  against 
which  Non-Conformity  protests. 

In  what  way,  however,  ought  the  contention  to  be 
met  that  the  bishop  is  not  using  a  human  judgment ; 


142    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  him  for  this  very  purpose 
that  he  should  judge  ?  I  think  the  Non-Conformist 
would  reply  that  he  did  not  deny  that  the  bishop  also 
received  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  that  his  judgment  was 
none  the  less  human  and  not  infallible,  for  he  could 
only  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  according  to  individual 
measure.  I  do  not  think  any  other  reply  can  be  given. 
It  is  exactly  the  answer  which  I  have  already  given,  in 
one  shape  or  another,  to  the  argument  that  because  God 
was  in  us,  therefore  our  ideas  about  God  could  not  be 
described  as  human  notions  ;  that  because  God  was  in 
us  therefore  the  unity  we  construct  was  not  to  be 
described  as  man-made  ;  that  for  the  same  reason,  we 
could  worship  Christ  as  in  us.  I  am  not  trying  merely 
to  score  a  controversial  point.  If  we  are  to  save  our 
souls  from  an  entire  disbelief  in  God  as  more  than  a 
name  for  anything  we  choose  to  count  nice,  we  must 
realise  consistently  the  distinction  between  God  in 
Himself,  between  Christ  Incarnate  and  Ascended, 
between  the  Holy  Spirit,  Who  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son  together  is  worshipped.  One  God  Blessed  for  ever- 
more, and  those  operations  of  God  which  work  in 
nature  as  force  and  in  men  as  inspiration  or  indwelling. 
I  have  urged  that  to  confuse  that  distinction  was  to 
make  Christ,  not  our  salvation  from,  but  an  excuse  for, 
self -worship  and  self-will.  I  cannot  refuse  to  admit  it 
now  when  it  seems  to  tell  against  my  position.  I  do 
admit  therefore  that  the  Non-Conformist  is  justified  in 
speaking  of  the  bishops'  judgment  as  a  human  judg- 
ment. I  have  a  right  to  ask  him  in  return  to  recognise 
elsewhere  the  principle  which  is  to  him  in  this  case 
so  clear. 

Of  course  I  do  not  suppose  for  a  moment  that  any 
Non-Conformist  would  say  that  the  individual  was 


FREEDOM 


143 


necessarily  in  the  right,  merely  because  he  is  quite 
sure  that  he  has  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  belief  that 
things  are  true  because  we  think  them,  and  right 
because  we  like  them,  is  only  too  near  all  of  us.  That 
is  not  what  the  claim  for  freedom  means,  but  it  is  what 
only  too  many  of  us  mean  by  it.  I  believe  the  Non- 
Conformist  would  not  deny  that  the  ideal  of  unfettered 
freedom  was  full  of  danger  to  human  souls  in  just  this 
way,  but  he  would  reply  exactly  as  I  replied  about 
formalism,  that  we  do  not  find  safety  merely  by  escap- 
ing dangers.  We  receive  God's  gifts  always  with  the 
responsibility  of  using  them  rightly  and  the  danger  of 
using  them  wrongly.  It  is  my  ultimate  purpose  to 
show  how  both  dangers  can  be  met  by  making  use  of 
both  elements. 

I,  on  my  side,  must  not  hesitate,  however,  in  the 
fullest  way  to  admit  that  there  is  a  use  of  freedom.  It 
is  of  necessity  that  each  soul  should  answer  for  itself 
to  God,  should  learn  to  bear  its  responsibility.  We 
also  must  learn  to  trust  souls  to  Him,  and  if  they  seem 
to  go  astray,  we  must  yet  believe  that  He  Who  died  for 
them  will  guide  their  footsteps  in  ways  that  we  know 
not.  What  a  man  is  to  learn,  he  must  learn  himself. 
The  attempt  to  dictate  continually  is  false  in  principle 
and  has  now  broken  down  in  practice. 

I  have  therefore  spoken  of  the  Non-Conformist's 
position,  not  with  the  intimate  knowledge  of  one 
brought  up  in  it,  nor  with  that  wide  and  thorough 
familiarity  which  belongs  to  the  expert  student,  but 
merely  as  a  learner,  anxious  not  to  state  a  theory  of  his 
own,  but  to  be  sure  that  he  has  rightly  apprehended 
the  central  conviction  of  others.  Even  if  it  did  not 
naturally  appeal  to  me,  I  should  be  bound  to  give  it  the 
respect  and  earnest  attention  to  which  such  deep  con- 


144    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


viction  is  always  entitled.  As  a  matter  of  fact  it  is  a 
principle  which  does  appeal  to  me  very  much.  I 
admit,  however,  it  would  not  have  occurred  to  me 
independently  that  it  required  its  own  expression  in  the 
ecclesiastical  system.  Now  that  I  find  others  insisting, 
not  only  on  its  individual,  but  on  its  ecclesiastical, 
importance,  the  more  I  think  over  it,  the  more  I  find 
myself  forced  to  admit  the  claim  as  a  very  vital  element 
which  our  Church  ecclesiastical  system  gravely  lacks. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE. 

I  HAVE  in  the  last  chapter  made  large  admissions.  Are 
they  consistent  with  my  position  as  an  Episcopalian  ? 
I  have  already  explained  what  that  position  is,  but  I 
must  take  leave  to  re-emphasise  it  in  that  spirit  of 
loving  offensiveness  which  I  have  defended  above. 

To  use  a  classic  and  authoritative  phrase,  we  on  our 
side  are  speaking  of  an  '  historic  Episcopate.'  If  we 
were  addressing  ourselves  to  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copalians, we  might  plead  that  we  and  they  were  agreed 
upon  the  '  monarchical '  system,  could  they  not  bring 
themselves  to  accept  the  historic  principle  also  for  the 
sake  of  unity  ?  If  we  consider  our  agreement  with  the 
Presbyterians  upon  the  principle  of  an  ordained  minis- 
try, could  we  not  somehow  come  to  a  working  agree- 
ment upon  the  method  of  its  ordination  ?  I  have  a 
suspicion  that  such  proposals  would  be  resented,  and  I 
am  quite  sure  that  if  accepted  they  would  be  useless. 
If  I  have  learnt  my  lesson  rightly  these  bodies  are  not 
separated  from  us  merely  by  details  of  a  system,  but 
by  a  certain  spirit,  which  in  substance  they  share  with 
Non-Conformists  at  large.  It  is  with  that  whole  spirit 
that  we  must  reckon.  I  am  aware  that  the  Presby- 
terians do  not  maintain  that  spirit  at  aU  so  strongly  as 
the  Congregationalists,  for  instance,  but  if  we  ask  them 

K 


146    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


to  come  over  to  our  side  as  against  Non-Conformity, 
I  believe  they  would  positively  refuse. 

If  we  ask  others  to  accept  the  '  historic  '  Episcopate, 
we  are  not  standing  out,  and  we  are  not  asking  the  Non- 
Conformist  to  take  so  grave  a  step,  merely  for  the  sake 
of  antiquarian  sentiment,  merely  because  it  is  so  much 
nicer  to  follow  a  system  that  is  very  old  rather  than  a 
system  which  is  not  so  old.  By  the  '  historic  '  Episco- 
pate, we  mean  a  God-given  order,  something  which  is 
necessarily  and  unalterably  right ;  something  which  is 
more  than  a  question  of  relative  efficiency  ;  something 
which  we  own  to  be  in  just  this  shape  indispensable. 
We  should  have  no  right  to  insist  upon  it,  and  we  could 
not  ask  that  it  should  be  accepted  for  any  other  reason, 
or  in  any  other  way.  I  quite  see  how  reasonably  the 
Non-Conformist  holds  our  belief  in  a  God-given  order 
to  be  fatal  to  his  belief  in  the  God-given  freedom  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  is  the  root  of  our  quarrel.  I  can  only 
ask  others  to  believe  how  intensely  painful  and  un- 
welcome it  is  to  us  to  be  obliged  to  put  it  forward,  but 
we  cannot  help  it.  The  Non-Conformists  are  most 
anxious  to  be  tolerant,  but  plainly  they  cannot  tolerate 
this.  Which  of  us  is  right,  and  which  of  us  must  give 
way  ?  That,  I  have  said,  is  a  hopeless  question  to 
ask. 

If  I  may  once  more  go  back,  I  should  like  to  pick  up 
various  hints  which  the  course  of  this  study  has  sug- 
gested. I  have  maintained,  and  I  maintain,  that  no 
Unity  worth  having  can  be  got  by  surrender.  I  am  sure 
we  Catholics  do  not  mean  to  give  up  our  faith,  and  I 
speak  for  myself  when  I  express  my  sincere  hope  that 
the  Non-Conformists  will  not  give  up  theirs.  I  have 
maintained,  and  I  maintain  still,  that  God  is  leading 
both  of  us  forward  and  not  backward.    I  repeat,  I  have 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE 


147 


no  idea  of  surrendering,  and  I  do  not  want  anyone  else 
to  surrender,  any  conviction. 

I  have  also  pointed  out  in  the  last  chapter  that  a 
deadlock  always  looks  final,  and  may  be  final,  when 
you  can  narrow  the  issue  to  a  single  point.  If  I  and 
a  friend  fall  to  arguing  whether  travelling  by  land  or  by 
sea  is  better,  we  may  not  easily  agree.  Personally  I 
loathe  the  sea.  I  admit  that  this  is  temperamental, 
and  I  know  there  are  people  (of  depraved  temperament) 
who  like  it.  If,  however,  some  third  party  asks  where 
I  want  to  go,  it  begins  to  occur  to  me  that  the  world  is 
a  biggish  place,  and,  if  I  am  bound  for  Calcutta,  even 
the  Indian  Ocean  may  be  preferable  to  Thibet  and  the 
passes  of  the  Pamirs. 

Let  us  apply  this.  Is  freedom  more  vital  than  order, 
or  order  than  freedom  ?  I  perceive  a  very  long  argu- 
ment ahead  of  us  and  no  very  certain  goal.  Is  my 
dinner  or  my  digestion  the  prior  necessity  ? 

Some  ha'  meat  that  canna  eat, 
And  some  want  bread  that  lack  it. 

We  are  talking  of  human  life,  and  life  does  not  treat 
these  things  as  alternatives.  It  finds  a  place  and  an 
absolutely  necessary  place  for  both.  If  we  ask  what  is 
the  place  for  each,  the  deadlock  may  begin  to  loosen  a 
little.  We  may  still  differ  as  to  the  size  of  the  two 
spheres,  but  each  is  so  necessary  to  all  of  us  that  we 
may  begin  to  recognise  that  the  person  who  differs 
from  us  in  character  is  not  the  person  we  ought  to 
quarrel  with,  but  the  person  whose  help  we  shall  prob- 
ably need.    He  is  probably  able  to  do  things  we  cannot. 

In  the  last  chapter  I  studied  the  Non-Conformist 
position  with  some  care.  We  '  Churchmen  '  know  a 
fair  amount  about  the  tenets  and  the  systems  of  this 
body  and  that  body,  but  I  felt  sure  that  there  was 


148    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


something  of  a  common  spirit  or  ideal  which  the  bodies 
share  differently,  but  which  they  all  share  in  some 
degree,  which  is  being  increasingly  felt  as  a  bond  of 
unity  among  them  and  as  being  different  from  ours.  I 
want  now  to  study  Episcopacy  in  the  same  way,  for  it 
also  is  a  principle,  as  well  as  a  form. 

This  is,  I  think,  one  root  of  all  our  apparently  hope- 
less difference.  It  is  easy  to  see  other  people's  forms, 
and  we  know  our  own.  We  can  see  the  practical  con- 
fusions in  which  others  are  involved,  and  we  rejoice  in 
their  difficulties.  We  do  not  like  to  admit  it  even  to 
ourselves,  but  we  have  a  hope  that  before  long  the  other 
party  will  give  way  altogether  and  disappear,  and  then 
we  shall  get  unity  on  our  own  terms. 

The  fact  is  that  while  we  know  our  own  practices, 
we  are  at  most  times  but  dimly  conscious  of  our  prin- 
ciples, and  we  hardly  realise  that  it  is  our  faith  in  our 
principles  which  enables  us  to  bear  up  against  the  dis- 
appointments, failures,  imperfections,  of  our  results. 
It  hardly  occurs  to  us  at  all  that  other  people  have 
principles.  So  we  wonder  how  the  opposite  side  can 
go  on  and  on  without  recognising  what  a  failure  it  is. 
No  doubt  it  is  a  very  absurd  attitude  to  take  up,  but 
then  we  do  not  take  it  up.  More  generally  that  is  what 
we  find  ourselves  doing.  If  anyone  is  inclined  to  resent 
this  description  of  his  attitude,  now  that  I  come  to  think 
of  it,  it  is  that  which  comes  most  easily  to  myself. 

Certainly  if  we  are  to  get  out  of  our  dead-locks  and 
so  forth,  we  must  begin  with  principles,  that  is,  with 
the  real  central  aims  we  and  others  have,  and  consider 
our  forms,  first,  as  constituting  a  guide  to  the  principles 
in  question  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  forms  are  the  true 
expression  of  principles.  Perhaps  it  was  very  stupid 
of  us  not  to  have  seen  this  in  the  case  of  Non-Confor- 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  149 


mity,  which  has  always  professed  itself  to  be  a  principle. 
Where,  however,  we  have  to  do  with  a  thing  like  Epis- 
copacy which  is  somewhat  a  form,  it  is  much  easier  to 
forget  that  it  also  has  a  principle.  And  that  is  a  pity, 
for  if  we  forget  it,  then  both  Episcopalians  and  Non- 
Episcopalians  are  apt  to  assume  that  the  form  which  it 
has  at  any  given  moment  is  that  for  or  against  which  we 
must  contend.  Anglicanism,  however,  represents  only 
one  form  of  Episcopacy,  and  it  is  desirable  to  look  at 
other  forms  that  we  may  see  what  underlies  them  all, 
for  it  is  the  principle,  and  not  one  particular  form,  with 
which  we  are  concerned.  A  little  historical  summary 
will  not  be  out  of  place  when  we  are  talking  of  an 
historic  episcopate. 

The  ministry  of  the  New  Testament  times — let  us 
say  of  the  first  century — is  a  highly  controversial 
question.  For  the  moment  we  will  pass  it  by.  In  the 
second  century,  as  soon  as  we  get  any  clear  view  of  what 
is  going  on,  we  find  a  number  of  churches  in  many 
places.  Their  minds  are  possessed  with  two  ideas,  each 
of  which  is  leading  to  its  own  developments.  On  the 
one  hand,  each  church  has  a  certain  completeness  in 
itself.  Its  own  spiritual  organisation  develops  to  keep 
pace  with  its  own  needs,  and  this  leads  to  an  elaboration 
of  the  ministry.  On  the  other  hand,  each  church  feels 
itself  to  be  a  part  of  a  greater  whole  ;  the  development 
in  this  centralising  direction  leads  to  councils,  to 
metropolitanates,  patriarchates  and  so  forth.  It  is 
with  the  local  church  life  that  we  are  mainly  concerned. 

Speaking,  therefore,  of  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century,  perhaps  of  the  last  years  of  the  first,  we  find 
each  Christian  Community  has  its  own  pastor.  He 
might  have  assistants  and  deputies  of  various  kinds, 
but,  on  earth,  as  in  heaven,  there  was  one  flock  and  one 


150    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


shepherd.  There  are  many  changes  going  on,  but  this 
idea  remains  fixed.  The  changes  or  developments  take 
place  first  of  all  in  regard  to  the  idea  of  the  flock.  What 
constitutes  a  '  Church,'  a  '  congregation,'  a  '  com- 
munity '  ?  When  believers  were  few,  their  unity  was 
a  simple  and  obvious  matter.  They  all  knew  one 
another,  and  were  known  to  their  '  overseer  '  [episcopus). 

When  Christianity  began  to  reach  out  into  the 
country  districts,  so  soon  as  the  distance  became  too 
great  to  allow  of  people  coming  in  for  service,  the 
villages  constituted  '  congregations,'  and  they  also 
must  have  a  pastor,  an  overseer,  or  bishop,  even  though 
there  might  not  be  more  than  a  dozen  Christian  families. 
To  the  Roman  mind,  the  local  unit  was  always  the 
municipium,  or  borough.  The  city,  therefore,  was  indi- 
visible, while  the  *  village-bishops  '  settled  on  the  terri- 
tory of  the  city,  were  subordinate.  They  were  often 
men  of  little  culture  or  outlook,  with  little  sense  of  the 
responsibilities  involved  in  membership  of  the  Church 
as  a  whole,  yet  as  bishops  they  were  difficult  to  restrain. 
From  the  beginning,  bishops  were  assisted  by  Presbyters 
who  acted  as  their  deputies  when  required.  It  was  a 
long  time  before  the  old  system  gave  way,  but  in  result 
it  was  found  better  to  send  priests  to  take  charge  of  the 
village  congregations.  The  old  idea  still  remained. 
Parish  is  the  ancient  name  for  the  bishop's  charge,  and 
his  ofiice  was  an  '  oversight.'  Parish  is  still  the  name 
for  the  unit  constituting  a  single  charge.  We  no 
longer  call  it  an  episcopatus,  or  oversight,  but  a  charge, 
care,  or  cur  a.  The  man  who  thus  receives  '  cure  of 
souls,'  is  solemnly  '  instituted,'  and  can  only  be 
deposed,  hke  the  bishop  himself,  by  a  solemn  Church 
process. 

In  the  city  itself,  the  development  was  much  slower. 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  151 


The  Christian  congregations  soon  outgrew  the  possibili- 
ties of  a  single  *  pastorate/  a  single  personal  oversight. 
But  because  it  had  a  common  life  the  city  was  very 
difficult  to  divide.  It  was  only  under  stress  of  actual 
necessity  that  it  was  broken  up  into  divisions  which 
could  not  help  being  somewhat  artificial.  The  Roman 
applied  the  city  idea  to  the  country.  It  is  a  peculiarity 
of  English  politics  from  very  early  Anglo-Saxon  times 
to  treat  the  boroughs  as  if  they  were  country  districts. 
We  have  made  them  into  counties,  and  we  have  split 
them  up  into  parishes  as  if  they  were  groups  of  villages. 

Outside  the  Roman  Empire,  as  in  Ireland  and  in 
Wales,  there  were  no  municipia.  The  primary  com- 
munity was  the  tribe  ;  the  divisions  were  rather  of 
persons  than  of  areas.  The  bishops,  therefore,  were 
bishops  of  tribes,  and  the  whole  system  was  different. 

I  have  thought  this  historical  summary  worth  noting 
because  it  helps  us  to  see  how  a  system  could  change 
and  develop  without  ever  losing  its  primary  idea,  for 
the  changes  belong  only  to  the  application  of  that  idea 
to  different  kinds  of  community. 

I  want,  however,  to  trace  two  very  important 
developments  within  the  community  itself.  The  first 
affects  the  clergy.  In  the  earliest  stage  the  life  of  the 
community  is  very  simple,  and  the  bishop's  office  in 
relation  to  that  life  is  very  simple.  S.  Ignatius  can 
say,  '  let  nothing  be  done  apart  from  the  bishop.'  In 
time  the  mere  increase  of  numbers  makes  it  first  diffi- 
cult and  then  impossible  for  the  one  pastor  to  know  all 
his  flock  personally.  The  actual  ministry  of  souls  has 
to  be  left  to  the  presbyters.  The  bishop  becomes 
rather  the  bishop  of  the  clergy  than  the  personal 
pastor  of  the  people,  just  as  in  a  very  large  school  the 
headmaster  is  rather  the  head  of  the  masters  than  the 


152    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


teacher  of  the  boys.  He  is  more  concerned  with  the 
body  as  a  whole  than  with  its  members. 

The  second  change  is  among  the  people.  There  are 
always  different  classes  of  minds,  characters  or  tempera- 
ments to  be  allowed  for  besides  the  different  social 
classes.  There  are  the  cultured  and  the  ignorant,  the 
leisured  and  the  busy ;  there  are  also  the  earnest  and 
the  commonplace.  In  a  small  Church,  such  as  a 
village,  these  are  personal  differences  and  easily  allowed 
for.  In  a  large  Church,  where  they  become  differences 
between  large  groups  of  people  capable  of  acting 
together,  they  may  produce  serious  results.  Both 
these  changes,  however,  the  separation  of  a  clerical  or 
professional  state,  and  the  separation  of  different 
classes,  whether  temperamental  or  social,  are  a  quite 
inevitable  part  of  that  progress  from  the  simple  to  the 
elaborate,  from  the  homogeneous  to  the  heterogeneous, 
as  Herbert  Spencer  called  it,  which  is  the  evolution 
implied  in  the  growth  of  all  bodies,  biological  or 
political. 

The  last  of  those  class  distinctions  to  which  I  have 
referred,  that  between  the  earnest — ^whom  we  may  call 
the  '  devout '  by  way  of  a  distinctive  title — and  the 
commonplace,  is  not  peculiar  to  religion.  Every  form 
of  activity,  art,  learning  or  sport,  has  its  skilled  enthu- 
siasts, and  its  average  followers  who  without  attaining 
marked  success  still  make  use  of  it.  These  average 
followers  must  not  be  confused  with  the  indifferent,  nor 
must  we  confuse  the  enthusiasts  with  the  professionals. 
As  a  general  rule  the  professional  class  is  recruited  from 
the  ranks  of  the  skilful  and  enthusiastic,  but  it  never 
includes  all  the  skilled,  and,  especially  if  the  professional 
class  is  large,  it  will  include  some  who  are  not  more  than 
average.    There  is  often  a  good  deal  of  difference 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  153 


between  the  skill  of  a  professional  and  that  of  a  devoted 
amateur.  Their  way  of  looking  at  a  subject  is  also 
somewhat  different.  The  narrow  tendency  to  regard 
music  as  the  only  thing  worth  living  for  is  perhaps  more 
common  among  enthusiastic  amateurs  than  among 
those  who  make  their  living  by  the  art. 

As  early  as  S.  Ignatius'  letters  we  hear  of  people  who 
had  consecrated  their  lives  to  religious  pursuits,  and  yet 
were  not  clergy.  We  hear  of  them  again  in  Tertullian 
at  the  end  of  the  second  century.  In  the  third  century 
we  find  sects  of  earnest  people  who  are  anxious  to 
forbid  all  second  marriages,  flight  in  persecution,  the 
restoration  of  the  fallen,  anything  which  seems  to  come 
short  of  the  very  highest  ideal.  Some  of  them  are 
ready  to  leave  the  Church  on  this  ground.  The  bishops 
resist  them,  not  because  the  bishops  are  especially 
wise  men,  but  because  they  are  officials  and  have  learnt 
that  the  body  is  made  of  common  people  and  exists  for 
common  people.  In  the  second  century  controversies 
the  bishops  were  mainly  right,  but  here,  nevertheless, 
we  may  see  the  coming  danger,  when  the  bishops  and 
the  clergy  will  stand  for  religious  worldliness  and  easy- 
goingness.  Then  '  the  devout '  wiU  be  wanted  in  their 
turn. 

After  the  third  century  there  are  no  new  schisms  on 
this  ground.  '  The  devout '  have  found  a  life  for  them- 
selves. Monasticism  has  begun.  The  head  of  the 
monastery  is  not  a  bishop,  nor  even  a  priest,  but  an 
abbot.  The  monks  are  not  priests.  S.  Jerome  regards 
such  office  as  inconsistent  with  his  monastic  calling. 
They  are  laymen  or  women  who  have  given  themselves 
up  to  a  purely  religious  life,  and  to  purely  religious 
pursuits.  Monasticism  does  not,  of  course,  include  all 
the  devout,  but  it  is  the  organised  expression  of  the 


154    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


devout  spirit  which  others  follow  according  to  their 
opportunities. 

The  clergy  stand  somewhat  apart  from  this  move- 
ment. They  do  not  very  well  understand  it,  and  some- 
times they  do  not  altogether  sympathise  with  it.  They 
have,  however,  learnt  to  realise  that  there  are  people 
who  have  needs  which  others  do  not  feel,  and  that  room 
must  be  left  for  them.  They  claim  a  certain  power  of 
oversight  which  they  do  not  exercise  very  efficiently, 
and  they  provide  the  clergy  necessary  for  the  sacra- 
mental services. 

This  condition  lasts  through  the  Middle  Ages.  It 
may  not  be  a  very  good  way  of  organising  the  two  sides 
of  life.  It  may  have  been  mixed  with  many  abuses, 
yet  it  did  enable  each  to  do  its  own  work,  and  give  its 
own  help.  There  was  hardly  any  religious  revival  in 
the  Middle  Ages  which  was  not  first  a  Monastic  Reforma- 
tion. Let  us  admit  that  '  the  devout '  had  separated 
themselves  too  far  from  common  life.  Perhaps  in  the 
Dark  Ages  that  may  have  been  necessary  if  devotion 
was  not  to  be  altogether  overwhelmed.  But  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  the  objection  was  more  obvious. 
Then  came  the  friar  movement.  The  devout  leave 
their  seclusion.  They  come  into  the  towns  ;  they  range 
the  country-side.  With  their  fervour  they  quicken  the 
too  complacent  worldliness  which  has  beset  the  normal 
organisation. 

In  Ireland  things  took  a  different  course.  The  bishop 
was  not  backed  by  the  solid  weight  of  the  municipium, 
while  the  abbot  had  the  support  of  his  monastery,  and 
the  Irish  monastery  was  a  much  bigger  affair  than  its 
continental  equivalent.  Thus  it  came  to  pass  that 
in  Ireland  Church  authority  was  taken  up  by  the 
abbot,  who  kept  *  episcopal  chaplains '  to  perform  the 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  155 


necessary  episcopal  functions — ordination  and  con- 
firmation. 

In  this  summary  I  have  tried  so  far  as  might  be  to 
avoid  all  controversial  and  all  doctrinal  questions.  I 
want  only  to  call  attention  to  two  leading  points,  and  to 
the  relation  between  them. 

(1)  From  the  second  century  to  the  Reformation  we 
find  a  continuous,  official,  ministry.  In  application  to 
different  circumstances,  it  undergoes  a  good  deal  of 
modification,  but  except  in  Ireland  it  is  always  respon- 
sible for  the  formal  machinery  of  the  Church  system. 
Always,  and  this  time  without  any  exception,  it  is 
responsible  for  the  continuous  sacramental  life  other 
than  baptism,  and  even  that  is  left  mostly  in  its  hands. 

(2)  This  official  system  has,  like  aU  systems,  a  marked 
tendency  to  extend  its  activities,  to  absorb  all  functions 
into  itself.  In  the  third  century,  the  agape  drops  out 
because  it  was  not  a  clerical  service.  Towards  the 
close  of  the  fourth,  the  private  '  offices,'  the  non- 
sacramental  services  of  psalms.  Scripture  reading  and 
the  like,  are  brought  into  Church  ;  they  become  clerical 
services,  though  the  clergy  never  took  complete  posses- 
sion of  them.  Most  momentous  of  all,  the  clergy  drew 
in  to  themselves  the  right  of  preaching,  but  this  also 
they  never  completely  monopolised. 

Always  alongside  of  the  official  there  is  another  class, 
representing,  not  the  normal  form  of  Church  life,  but 
rather  its  exceptional  enthusiasm,  intensity,  fervour  of 
devotion.  The  two  systems  are  in  an  uncertain  rela- 
tion. Sometimes  the  one,  sometimes  the  other,  gains 
a  predominance  which  is  unhealthy,  for  both  are,  as 
sides  of  Christianity,  incomplete  in  themselves.  If  the 
officials  are  subject  to  worldliness,  the  devout  are 
subject  to  fanaticism,  to  a  narrow,  exclusive  *  religious- 


156    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


ness.'  Yet,  not  without  a  good  deal  of  friction,  they 
work  out  a  progressive  result. 

I  have  so  far  omitted  all  reference  to  the  first  century. 
It  is  the  most  important  period  of  all ;  perhaps  many 
of  my  readers  may  think  it  the  only  important  one.  I 
have  left  it  out,  because  it  is  not  only  a  period  full  of 
controversy,  but  of  '  critical  *  controversy  in  the  techni- 
cal sense,  and  of  technical  criticism  any  writer  must 
keep  clear,  unless,  as  a  fully  qualified  expert,  he  is 
prepared  to  deal  at  length  with  all  the  diverse  and 
unsettled  theories.  Even  if  I  were  qualified,  the  results 
would  only  be  confusing.  We  are  at  present  looking 
for  broad  principles  such  as  the  plain  and  untechnical 
person  can  appreciate. 

There  is  a  further  difficulty  in  treating  the  first 
century.  For  the  earlier  part  in  S.  Paul's  letters 
we  have  a  reasonable  quantity  of  evidence,  though 
on  technical  points  of  ecclesiastical  system  it  is 
difficult  to  interpret.  For  the  last  thirty  years  we 
have  as  nearly  as  possible  no  evidence  at  all.  It  is 
exceedingly  easy  to  make  guess-work  reconstructions, 
but  we  cannot  really  interpret  our  materials  except  by 
trying  how  far  they  do  or  do  not  fit  in  with  principles 
which  we  have  learnt  to  recognise  elsewhere. 

This  is  all  I  shall  attempt  to  do.  It  is  quite  evident 
that  in  these  early  Churches,  there  were  no  '  Bishops  ' 
in  our  sense  of  the  term.  That  general  '  oversight '  of 
the  community  as  a  whole,  which  in  later  develop- 
ment constituted  the  central  responsibility  of  the 
bishop,  at  this  time  remained  with  the  Apostle.  S. 
Luke,  however,  tells  us  that  there  were  presbyters, 
whom  S.  Paul  in  Acts  xx.  28  calls  '  bishops,'  though  in 
his  early  letters  S.  Paul  never  alludes  to  them  unless 
we  may  assume  that  they  are  the  '  teachers  '  of  Gal.  v. 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  157 


6  and  elsewhere.  The  Churches  were  simmering  with 
the  joyous  excitement  of  their  new-found  faith.  There 
is  sufficient  evidence  that  the  forms  of  worship  were 
steadily  maintained,  but  men  were  being  most  swayed 
by  the  exercise  of  great  and  sometimes  miraculous 
gifts  or  charismata — healings,  tongues,  prophecy.  Of 
these,  therefore,  S.  Paul  has  a  great  deal  to  say. 

S.  Paul's  first  written  reference  to  '  bishops  '  (presby- 
ters) is  in  Philippians.  In  the  Pastoral  Epistles,  now 
that  the  end  approaches,  it  is  the  permanent  ministry, 
its  qualifications  and  right  functioning  which  occupy 
his  mind.  The  '  charismatic  ministry '  was  not  a 
regular  order.  Its  members  were  not  *  ordained.' 
They  were  highly  gifted  individuals,  and  the  gift  in  the 
man  was  its  own  witness,  though  its  exercise  called  for 
some  regulation. 

If  now  I  am  to  come  to  Reformation  and  Post- 
Reformation  times,  I  am  again  involving  myself  in 
peril  of  further  controversy.  Theological  controversy 
is  inevitable,  for  we  must  find  out  what  we  mean,  what 
we  believe,  what  we  need,  and  why  it  is  meant,  believed, 
needed.  Critical  controversies  are  a  very  tangled 
business.  Historical  controversies  are  full  of  bitter- 
ness, and  of  them  I  feel  inclined  to  say  that  those 
who  dig  in  graveyards  find  corpses. 

For  my  own  part  I  have  entered  this  business  as  a 
learner.  The  Non-Conformists  taught  me  to  see  the 
importance  of  certain  principles  which  are  too  easily 
taken  for  granted,  taught  me  to  see  that  those  principles 
also  manifested  themselves  in  forms  of  very  various 
kinds.  When  I  looked  for  them  in  history,  they  seemed 
to  me  to  throw  a  great  deal  of  light  on  events,  notably 
on  the  growth  and  influence  of  the  Religious  Life,  which 
had  not  otherwise  shown  much  meaning.    I  want  to 


158    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


apply  it  to  our  own  more  recent  history,  and  see  if  it 
will  not  explain  to  us  something  of  the  position  in  which 
we  stand  to-day.  The  interpretation  will  of  course  be 
my  own  ;  it  will  be  what  I  seem  to  myself  to  have 
learnt.  Very  many  people  will  differ  from  my  interpre- 
tation strongly.  I  do  not  ask  them  not  to  be  critical ; 
I  do  ask  them  not  to  be  controversial.  I  ask  them 
to  take  my  interpretation  as  a  suggestion  ;  to  consider 
whether  it  does  not  throw  some  light  on  what  has 
happened. 

I  propose  then  to  consider  chiefly  the  Reformation 
in  England,  not  because  it  is  more  important  than  any 
other,  but  because  in  England  all  the  different  ideas 
met  in  their  most  confusing  shapes,  and  because  it 
was  out  of  that  unsettled  English  confusion  that  our 
present  situation  has  mainly  arisen. 

We  will  say  that  the  English  Reformation  began 
under  Henry  VIII.  Its  professed  intention  was  to 
retain  the  essential  Catholic  position,  but  to  get  rid  of 
abuses.  In  the  main  this  was  always  its  ideal,  though 
of  course  men  had  from  time  to  time  very  different 
ideas  of  what  should  be  recognised  as  abuse.  Its  first 
step  was  to  get  rid  of  the  papal  authority.  The 
essentially  Catholic  system  was  that  of  the  bishop  and 
parish,  and  this  was  retained  without  material  altera- 
tion ;  but  the  second  step  was  to  remove  all  the 
*  voluntary  '  part  of  the  system.  Monasteries,  friaries, 
chantries,  were  all  swept  away  together.  We  are  not 
here  concerned  with  the  motives,  or  with  the  manner, 
but  only  with  some  of  the  consequences,  of  what  was 
done. 

(i)  The  severing  of  the  papal  connection  was  not  so 
startling  a  change  as  we,  with  our  experience  of  modern 
Romanism,  are  apt  to  think.    Ever  since  the  Council  of 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  159 


Constance,  and  even  before  that,  the  idea  had  been 
occasionally  talked  about,  but  its  actual  result  was  to 
throw  the  Church  entirely  into  the  hands  of  the  king, 
and  this  was  a  very  serious  matter.  We  know  from 
history  that  if  the  State  attacks  religion,  she  does  so  at 
her  peril.  If,  however,  the  State  tries  with  more 
cunning  to  manipulate  religion  to  its  own  ends,  I  have 
admitted  that  the  Episcopalian  system,  just  by  virtue 
of  its  centralisation,  provides  an  easy  mark.  The 
State  fully  realised  its  opportunities.  All  authority 
for  the  diocese  was  concentrated  in  the  bishop  alone. 
All  parish  authority  was  concentrated  in  the  parish 
priest.  The  State  recognised  nothing  but  the  bishops 
taken  singly.  The  law  defended  the  freehold  of  the 
rector  as  a  property.  All  common  Church  activity  was 
suppressed  and  in  this  way  paralysed.  The  laity  came 
in  nowhere  save  that  as  individuals  their  rights  were 
also  made  legal.  The  clergy  who  lived  amongst  the 
laity  and  knew  their  mind  had  no  effective  voice  in  any 
matter  of  common  policy.  The  bishop,  oppressed  with 
legal  forms  and  without  any  sohd  Church  feeling 
behind  him,  was  almost  helpless  before  the  independ- 
ence of  the  parish.  This  mingling  of  autocracies,  each 
absolute  and  isolated  in  its  own  sphere,  and  helpless 
outside  of  it,  is  another  form  of  Episcopacy,  the  Epis- 
copacy of  legahsm.  It  cannot  be  called  a  very  desirable 
form  ;  it  is  certainly  not  the  only  one,  even  among 
Anglican  Churches,  though  its  root  idea  has  very  deeply 
coloured  the  Churches  which  are  not  bound  by  the 
restrictions  of  the  English  establishment. 

The  repudiation  of  the  papacy  facilitated,  though  it 
was  not  the  sole  cause  of,  this  change.  The  Pope  had 
been  a  recognised  part  of  the  Church  system,  but  he 
was  outside  the  king's  reach,  and  in  a  number  of  cases 


i6o    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


the  bishops  had  been  able  to  shelter  themselves  behind 
him.  I  need  not  discuss,  I  do  not  deny,  how  much  he 
abused  his  office.  I  only  point  out  that  the  state 
absolutism  was  never  complete  so  long  as  that  power 
existed. 

(2)  The  State  had  therefore  brought  the  official 
rehgious  system  under  its  control,  and  it  did  so  all  the 
more  completely  by  destroying  its  rivals.  The  official 
Church  had  never  loved  the  friars,  the  chantries,  the 
monasteries,  and  it  acquiesced  in  their  departure.  The 
State  now  went  on  to  put  this  official  system  in  entire 
possession  of  everything.  Here  was  the  Act  of  Uni- 
formity. Here  was  the  book  it  prescribed.  Nobody 
must  use  any  other.  Everybody  must  go  to  the  official 
parish  church  where  it  was  used  on  pain  of  certain 
fines,  and  nobody  must  go  anywhere  else  under  pains 
still  more  drastic.  No  layman  might  preach.  In  the 
hands  of  the  State,  the  triumph  of  the  official  system 
was  complete. 

Of  course  such  Act-of-Parliament-religion  was  a  fore- 
doomed failure.  The  Church  officials  themselves  were 
restless  and  uneasy  over  it.  Especially  at  a  time  of 
theological  unsettlement  there  were  many  who  objected 
to  the  Prayer  Book  on  theory  ;  there  were  sure  to  be 
many  to  whose  spiritual  needs  it  did  not  correspond. 
But  it  was  the  working  of  the  system  as  a  whole,  its 
presentment  rather  as  a  policy  than  a  belief  or  even  a 
religion  which  repelled  the  most  earnest.  Those  whom 
I  called  '  the  devout,'  those  who  sometimes  called 
themselves  *  the  godly  '  or  the  '  saints,'  were  drawn  off 
into  other  movements. 

The  situation  was  the  more  difficult  because  the 
official  Church  did  not  know  her  own  ground.  The 
principle  indeed  was  clear — the  whole  CathoHc  faith  as 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  i6i 


it  had  been  set  forth  in  Scripture,  interpreted  and  main- 
tained by  the  Church  in  all  time,  by  the  early  Church, 
by  the  undivided  Church,  freed  from  those  elements 
which  had  not  always  been  held,  which  were  accretions 
or  additions.  But  how  in  detail  were  these  to  be 
distinguished  in  a  time  of  so  much  stress  and  imperfect 
knowledge  ?  Would  it  not  be  simpler  to  let  all  idea  of 
a  continuous  Church  faith  go,  and  to  be  content  with 
individual  experience  and  the  obviously  scriptural  ? 
The  Church  varied,  she  compromised,  she  said  one 
thing  and  she  said  another.  There  is  a  great  deal  of 
justification  for  saying  she  had  no  ground,  that  she  was 
nothing  but  a  compromise.  Stephen  Gardiner,  and 
many  more  who  began  by  accepting  her  principle,  con- 
cluded that  if  one  means  to  be  a  Catholic  at  all,  one 
must  take  the  whole  present  condition.  He  accepted 
the  papacy.  Nevertheless,  the  conclusion  was  unjust. 
The  Church  had  chosen  a  principle,  though  she  had 
no  clear  perception  of  what  it  led  to.  Cranmer,  Jewel, 
Hooker,  Andrewes,  represent  a  steady  and  continuous 
effort  to  learn  its  meaning.  Even  Cranmer,  who  was 
the  least  consistent,  held  fast  to  these  elements  of 
episcopacy,  an  episcopally  ordained  priesthood  and 
priestly  consecration.  Though  in  the  Second  Prayer 
Book  he  *  pared  it  to  the  quick,* — reduced  the  Catholic 
system  to  its  barest  elements, — under  the  utmost  pres- 
sure of  the  government  he  refused  to  go  further. 

Certainly  the  Church  was  deplorably  weak.  Her 
position  was  as  yet  too  indefinite  to  arouse  enthusiasm. 
If  the  State  protection  had  not  held  the  doors  fast,  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  the  system  could  have  kept 
together  till  it  had  got  itself  formulated,  but  the  Church 
had  to  pay  a  heavy  price  for  the  protection.  The  State, 
of  course,  did  not  want  a  Church  *  theological '  position. 

L 


i62    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


To  politicians  positive  theological  convictions  are  ex- 
ceedingly inconvenient,  but  they  had  to  acquiesce  in 
the  theological  effort.  Common  sense  told  them  that 
the  Church  could  not  exist  without  principles,  but 
politicians  and  lawyers  have  never  ceased  to  scoff  at 
Church  doctrine  from  that  day  to  this. 

The  Church  therefore  suffered  from  State  protection, 
not  merely  from  the  worldhness  and  greed  of  courtiers, 
for  this  was  an  accident  of  the  times  which  she  has 
grown  out  of ;  not  merely  from  the  disastrous  stifling 
of  her  true  life,  for  that  she  might  have  broken  through. 
She  suffered  most  of  all  from  the  fact  that  in  studying 
her  own  faith  she  was  forced  to  treat  it  as  a  policy. 
Every  casual  abuse  of  the  Church  courts,  every  iota  of 
the  system  as  it  stood,  must  be  defended.  It  was 
impossible  for  her  to  reconcile  anything,  or  to  ask  if 
the  two  systems  could  not  be  combined.  She  meant 
to  defend  Episcopalianism,  she  was  really  defending 
legalist  Episcopalianism,  and  legalism  deals  exclusively 
in  positive  right  and  wrong.  It  may  admit  the  dis- 
cussion of  whe7i  is  a  thing  right,  but  it  thinks  very  little 
of  the  qualifying  how  far.  It  considers  qualifying 
circumstances,  but  it  is  very  soon  wearied  by  qualified 
principles. 

I  have  been  quite  frank  about  the  failures  of  Epis- 
copalianism, perhaps  I  have  won  my  right  to  criticise 
its  opponents  who  were  certainly  not  very  helpful. 
The}^  had  come  by  a  system  of  their  own  much  earlier, 
and  a  system  much  more  clear-cut  than  the  Church 
ever  made  hers.  They  meant  to  have  it,  and  to  have 
it  entire.  Anything  else  was  the  Scarlet  Woman,  and 
dregs  of  Rome,  and  the  abomination  of  idolatry,  and 
many  more  things.  They  defied  the  government  and 
all  its  works.    Religion  belonged  to  religious  people, 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  163 


and  a  government  was  only  tolerable  when  it  would 
submit  to  the  teaching  of  religious  people. 

The  State  and  its  Church  seemed  to  be  winning  their 
way.  There  was  a  furious  explosion,  and  the  religious 
won.  Rupert  and  the  Cavaliers  were  no  match  for  the 
deadly  earnestness  of  the  psalm-singers.  Now  was  the 
time  for  the  kingdom  of  righteousness  to  be  established 
by  rehgious  men.  It  was  honestly  attempted,  but  of 
the  upshot  there  is  no  dispute.  The  nation  made  up 
its  mind,  almost  as  one  man,  that  anything,  even 
Charles  II.,  was  better  than  this.  What  does  it  mean  ? 
Professor  Gardiner  said  the  nation  was  not  worthy  of 
it.  I  venture  to  offer  another  reading.  I  am  afraid 
my  brethren  will  not  like  it,  but  I  have  a  good  hope 
they  will  see  its  significance. 

These  intensely  devout,  earnest,  religious  men  made 
the  fatal  mistake  to  which  the  specially  able  and  skilful 
exponents  of  any  mystery  are  always  liable.  To  use 
the  educational  type  I  have  used  once  before,  our 
professors  of  learning  and  culture  imagine  that  theirs 
is  the  one  true  way,  by  which  all,  learned  and  common, 
must  go.  They  can  very  rarely  understand  that  the 
common  man's  use  of  a  thing  is  quite  different  to  that 
of  the  clever  man.  In  result,  the  professor  builds  up 
theories,  and  the  common  man  laughs  at  them.  Once 
his  last  examination  is  over,  the  common  man  turns 
with  relief  to  be  practical,  energetic,  and  common-sense. 
We  are  partly  beginning  to  realise  this. 

*  The  person  who  has  no  grip  on  scholarship  is  an 
intellectual  outsider.'  No,  he  is  not.  If  only  he  were 
shown  how  to  use  the  powers  he  has  got,  he  is  often  a 
person  of  quite  reasonable  intelligence. 

*  Religion  is  for  the  religious  people.'  May  be  it  is  ; 
but  well  do  I  know  and  firmly  believe  that  the  love  of 


i64    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


God  and  faith  in  God  are  just  one  thing,  equally  possible 
and  equally  needed  for  all  men  alike.  *  The  man  who  is 
not  religious  is  irreligious  and  profane.'  He  is  nothing 
of  the  sort,  but  if  you  identify  the  love  of  God  with 
*  religiousness,'  if  therefore  you  try  to  force  the  common 
man  along  the  paths  of  the  devout,  irreligious  and 
profane  he  will  be.  The  reign  of  Charles  II.  was  the 
inevitable  outcome  of  the  Commonwealth. 

After  the  restoration,  the  Cavalier  party  triumphed. 
It  was  a  party  triumph.  Episcopalianism  was  no  more 
necessarily  a  belief  than  ever,  but  it  was  the  banner  of 
the  victory.  Certainly  this  was  not  the  time  for  an 
examination  and  reconciliation  of  principles.  There 
was  another  Act  of  Uniformity,  just  as  there  was  a 
Five  Mile  Act.  From  that  day  to  this,  the  separation 
has  gone  on.  The  only  men  who  have  ever  shown  a 
real  theological  conception  of  the  necessary  relation  of 
the  two  sides  of  Church  life  were  the  two  Wesley s.  They 
conceived  of  an  organised  band  of  the  sincerely  devout, 
maintaining  their  devoutness  by  use  of  a  common 
Method,  but  using  the  sacramental  Church  system. 

This  had  its  great  possibihties,  but  it  was  not  possible 
at  the  time  on  either  side.  The  Church  was  still  bound 
and  tied  by  her  system  of  legalist  officialism,  and  would 
not  or  could  not  look  beyond  it.  The  members  of 
Wesley's  fraternity  did  not  understand  it  or  care  about 
it.  John  Wesley  himself  was  not  consistent.  The  plain 
fact  is,  the  Methodist  as  well  as  the  Churchmen  failed  to 
see  that  the  Church  was  more  than  a  legal  body  as 
distinct  from  others  which  were  doubtfully  legal.  No 
one  adequately  appreciated  the  true  force  of  the  sacra- 
mental question. 

In  process  of  time  the  Church  has  grown  out  of  a 
great  many  of  her  defects.    By  God's  mercy  there  has 


THE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE  165 


been  given  to  it  a  strong  spiritual  life,  but  it  is  impossible 
to  deny  that  many  evils  remain.  Of  the  present  posi- 
tion of  Anglicanism  I  should  like  to  say  something  later. 

These  historical  reviews  may  seem  very  discouraging. 
There  were  good  earnest  men  on  both  sides.  How  is 
it  that  they  understood  one  another  so  little  ?  It  all 
looks  so  unreasonable.  I  do  not  pretend  to  answer 
such  questions  adequately,  but  I  have  a  great  belief 
that  the  course  of  history  is  just  the  story  of  God's 
way  of  working  out  His  own  purpose.  I  do  not  think 
this  belief  should  throw  us  back  on  *  whatever  is,  is 
right,'  but  it  might  imply  '  whatever  was,  was  right.' 
Here  we  have  two  tremendous  principles,  so  different 
and  yet,  as  I  believe,  so  necessary  to  one  another.  If 
we,  wilful,  thick-headed  children  of  men  were  ever  to 
learn  what  God  meant  by  them,  and  the  relation  which 
exists  between  them,  may  it  not  have  been  the  wisest 
and  therefore  the  most  loving  thing,  to  let  us  develop 
each  of  the  two  separately  till  we  had  really  learnt 
what  each  could  do  for  us,  and  also  the  inherent  weak- 
ness of  each  without  its  fellow,  till  we  had  learnt  how 
impossible  it  was  to  do  justice  even  to  that  gift  we  had 
received  without  other  gifts  for  which  we  must  still 
search  ?  We  need  not  believe  that  God  left  Himself 
without  witness,  because  He  now  calleth  men  every- 
where to  repent.  We  need  not  believe  that  the  six- 
teenth century,  nor  the  seventeenth,  was  a  world  with- 
out God,  nor  should  w^e  believe  that  God  was  a  partisan 
of  one  side  or  the  other,  Who  had  yet  failed  to  secure 
the  triumph  of  His  own  views.  May  it  not  be  for  us 
He  has  prepared  some  better  thing,  that  they  without 
us  should  not  be  made  complete  ? 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  RELATION   OF  PRINCIPLES. 

So  far  I  have  professed  to  deal  with  different  sides  of 
our  subject — in  the  first  part  with  the  reHgious,  and 
in  this  second  part  with  the  ecclesiastical,  life.  In  the 
last  two  chapters,  I  have  dealt  with  different  views  of 
those  sides — in  Chapter  VII.  with  the  necessity  of  Free- 
dom and  in  Chapter  VIII.  with  the  idea  of  Episcopacy. 
What  is,  however,  a  difference  has  under  modern  con- 
ditions become  a  separation,  so  wide  that  I  felt  sure  I 
should  not  be  able  to  get  those  who  were  normally 
in  opposition  to  realise  the  importance  of  that  part  on 
which  I  wanted  to  insist  unless  I  showed  it  in  relation 
to  their  own  part.  I  have  therefore  already  anticipated 
much  of  what  I  want  to  say  here.  This  relation  of 
principles  is,  however,  so  entirely  the  substance  of  all 
that  is  worth  saying  that  I  must  try  to  present  it  by 
itself,  although  it  may  involve  some  repetition  which 
to  the  abler  among  my  readers  may  be  needless. 

(1)  I  have  tried  to  show  that  it  was  the  sacramental 
system,  rather  than  episcopal  government,  which  con- 
stituted the  most  central  and  positive  difference 
between  us.  I  tried  also  to  explain  why  the  apparent 
formalism  of  the  sacraments  seemed  to  us  so  necessary 
to  the  maintenance  of  the  evangelic  faith  in  Christ. 

(2)  In  dealing  next  with  the  ecclesiastical  system,  in 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  167 


the  light  of  what  I  took  to  be  the  central  principle  of 
Non-Conformity,  I  explained  what  I  believed  myself 
to  have  found  in  history — that  there  always  had  been 
from  the  beginning  a  formal,  permanent,  official  system, 
and  it  was  this  system  which  appealed  most  to  the 
common  man,  on  which  he  could  rest.  The  system 
itself  recognised  that  and  protected  his  rights.  There 
had  almost  always  been  in  addition  a  voluntary  or  free 
system,  which  was  the  spontaneous  creation  of  men  of 
the  highest  devotional  temperament.  From  its  very 
nature  it  was  not  a  permanent  system  ;  it  had  a  great 
variety  of  forms.  The  two  systems,  though  very 
necessary  to  one  another,  were  apt  to  develop  a  certain 
friction.  Sometimes  the  free  system  claimed  to  rule 
everything.  When  it  succeeded,  it  fell  into  sancti- 
moniousness, and  the  common  man  was  driven  into 
irreligiousness.  Sometimes  the  official  system  gained 
an  exclusive  control.  When  it  succeeded  it  fell  into 
worldliness,  and  the  devout  man  was  very  often  driven 
into  schism. 

We  have  then  before  us  three  pairs  of  factors,  which 
I  will  tabulate  : 

In  human  temperament :  the  common — the  de- 
vout. 

In  the  Church  system  :  the  official — the  free. 
In  religious  practice :  the  sacramental — the  non- 
sacramental. 

If  now  we  are  to  make  any  synthesis  between  the 
two  principles,  we  might  begin  with  any  one  of 
the  three  pairs  of  applications.  The  last  two,  how- 
ever, both  lead  to  our  deadlock.  Episcopalians  are 
not  wilUng  to  admit  the  existence  of  a  "  free " 
ministry :  Non-Conformists  refuse  to  admit  the  need 


i68    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


of  "  sacramentalism/'  or  the  sacramental  powers  of 
an  official  ministry. 

I  will  begin  therefore  with  the  first,  and  here  also 
are  serious  difficulties  or  confusions  to  be  met. 

(a)  In  the  first  place  we  have  to  recognise  that  the 
proposed  distinctions,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  men,  are 
comparative  only  ;  so  far  as  they  relate  to  systems  they 
are  tendencies  only.  Considering  men,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  an  exclusively  "  common  man,"  and  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  an  exclusively  "  devout  man." 
Temperament — so  far  as  it  goes — divides  us,  but  for- 
tunately it  does  not  go  half  so  far  as  we  think.  The 
devoutness  of  the  most  devout  rests  upon  the  essen- 
tially common  basis.  The  formalism  of  the  common 
man,  if  it  is  not  to  be  the  formalism  of  death,  has  its 
expression,  its  expansion,  in  devoutness.  A  positive 
division  between  the  two  is  sheer  ruin  both  for  the 
individual  and  for  the  Church. 

(b)  My  identification  of  the  official  with  the  sacra- 
mental will,  I  think,  be  admitted  by  Non-Conformists. 
They  will  entirely  deny  my  claim  to  identify  it  with  that 
which  belongs  especially  to  the  common  man.  They 
feel  as  strongly  as  I  do  that  Christianity  is  a  faith  for 
common  men,  yes  for  sinners.  If  they  believed  that 
Episcopahanism  was  the  simple  man's  behef,  they 
would  be  Episcopalians  too.  I  welcome  that  denial. 
I  could  not  have  called  them  my  brothers,  save  in  the 
conviction  that  we  here  are  at  one.  I  would  remind 
them,  however,  that  they  will  not  resent  my  contention 
one  whit  more  strongly  than  my  Catholic  and  Episco- 
palian brethren  will  resent  my  suggestion  that  the 
"  free  "  system  of  Non-Conformity  is  that  of  the  de- 
vout. Nevertheless  I  maintain  my  ground  under  the 
reservation  given — I  am  speaking  of  tendencies,  of  the 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  169 


distinctive  idea,  rather  than  of  an  exclusive  character. 
So  far  as  the  Non-Conformist  contention  is  concerned, 
I  have  already  shown  my  reasons,  but  I  think  they  will 
be  easier  to  follow  if  I  take  the  two  together. 

The  second  confusion  with  which  I  must  deal  is  of  a 
much  more  subtle  kind  than  the  first.  It  lies  at  the 
root  of  the  resentment  felt  by  Non-Conformists  and 
Churchmen  alike.  We  are  all  so  conscious  of  the  mis- 
chief and  folly  of  splitting  up  our  Christianity  that  no 
one  will  admit  he  does  it.  No  Churchman  will  admit 
that  he  is  a  formalist  or  unspiritual  or  indevout,  or  that 
his  system  gives  any  encouragement  to  such  defects. 
No  Non-Conformist  will  admit  that  he  thinks  himself 
above  the  common  man,  or  that  his  system  is  not  made 
for  the  common  man. 

I  accept  these  repudiations  on  both  sides  as  per- 
fectly genuine,  but  after  all  we  can  only  repudiate  what 
we  are  not  conscious  of  doing,  and  what  we  are  conscious 
that  we  do  not  mean  to  do.  We  are  conscious  of  a 
common  aim,  ideal,  or  purpose,  but  it  still  remains  for 
us  to  ask  very  earnestly  and  critically  whether  our 
system  does  imply  what  we  recognise  it  ought  to  imply. 
I  have  made  frank  confession  of  the  defects  which  I 
think  lie  on  our  side.  I  trust  I  have  been  neither  bitter 
nor  contemptuous  in  charging  defects  upon  others.  It 
is  the  difference  between  the  kinds  of  defects  in  each 
case  which  seem  to  me  so  significant. 

I  want  to  start  from  that  temperamental  difference 
of  the  devout  and  common  man.  Are  we  so  entirely 
free  from  the  evil  of  dividing  or  splitting  them  asunder  ? 
Professor  Harnack  approaches  the  history  of  Chris- 
tianity from  the  side  of  modem  German  Protestantism 
without  betraying  any  consciousness  of  those  difficulties 
which  the  more  evangelistic  of  his  fellow-countrymen 


170    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


feel  so  acutely.  In  his  History  of  Dogma  (vol.  iv.  c.  iv. 
Eng.  Trans.)  he  reminds  us  that  we  must  not  only  study 
the  development  of  Christian  thought,  we  must  also 
watch  the  growth  of  Christianity  of  the  second  rank, 
that  of  the  common  and  ignorant  men,  who  brought 
with  them  so  large  a  leaven  of  their  heathen  ideas  and 
superstitions.  I  only  suggest  that  we  must  not  merely 
watch,  we  must  understand,  this  growth. 

In  the  first  place.  Professor  Harnack's  summary 
sounds  a  little  too  like,  "  This  people  which  knoweth 
not  the  law  is  accursed,"  to  be  quite  satisfying.  In  our 
Lord's  day  there  was  a  Judaism  of  the  multitude,  which 
probably  contained  much  superstition,  and  there  was  a 
Judaism  of  the  thoroughly  religious, — Scribes  and 
Pharisees, — as  well  as  the  broad  and  enlightened 
Judaism  of  the  Sadducees.  "  The  religion  of  the  com- 
mon man, — of  the  ignorant, — the  religion  of  the  car- 
penter," were  the  taunts  all  enlightened  heathen  threw 
at  Christianity  itself  from  the  beginning. 

I  am  not  denying  that  the  common  Christianity  was 
superstitious,  but  if  the  modern  mind  has  learnt  any- 
thing from  the  study  of  Comparative  Religions,  has  it 
not  learnt  that  the  superstitions  of  the  heathen  are  the 
expressions  of  human  cravings  and  needs  which  have 
not  yet  found  their  proper  satisfaction  ?  If,  for 
instance,  sacramental  belief  seems  very  like  the  idolatry 
and  magic  of  heathenism,  may  it  not  be  that  it  is  so  just 
because  the  sacrament  is  the  God-given  answer  thereto  ? 
If  not,  then  we  may  be  admitting  that  the  very  human 
feelings  which  led  to  those  pathetic  results  were  not 
merely  wrong  in  the  gratification  they  found,  but 
absolutely  wrong  and  abortive  in  themselves. 

I  may  admit  that  there  were  superstitious  uses  and 
ideas,  but  even  here  the  balance  is  not  all  on  one  side. 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES 


171 


There  were  among  the  heathen  a  mass  of  ignorant 
idolaters,  but  God  did  mean  something  to  them.  The 
philosophers  had  many  profound  ideas,  but  it  was  not 
clear  that  the  Unknowable  Infinite  meant  anything. 
The  Chiliasm  of  the  early  Christians  was  a  crude  belief ; 
was  it  altogether  a  false  belief  ?  Christ  was  at  least  so 
much  of  a  reality  that  men  became  martyrs  gladly. 
And  this  reality  was  not  always  a  prominent  feature 
of  intellect ualism,  Gnostic  or  other.  When  we  have 
taken  out  of  our  Christianity  all  its  crudeness,  its 
miracles,  its  magic,  its  super-naturalism,  is  there  any- 
thing real  left  except  the  moralist  conclusion  that  it  is 
nice  to  be  nice  ?  The  "  niceness  "  of  the  spiritually 
nice  person  is,  I  admit,  very  nice,  but  the  niceness  of 
the  common  person  is  as  crude  as  ever.  The  common 
person  sought,  we  believed  Christianity  offered  us, 
something  real  which  could  lift  us  out  of  ourselves. 
This  very  enlightened  Christianity  represents  the 
enlightenment  of  the  enlightened. 

The  instincts  which  are  purely  human  cannot  be  so 
lightly  set  aside  without  grave  peril,  not  only  to  the 
common  man,  but  to  those  who  are  most  tempted  to 
think  themselves  superior.  Christianity  presents  itself 
in  formal,  material  facts, — the  Birth,  Passion,  Death, 
Resurrection  and  Ascension  of  Christ.  A  man  may 
grow  out  of,  or  fall  out  of  these,  by  falling — or  growing — 
into  self-satisfaction  or  self-sufficiency,  but  there  is 
nothing  else  beyond  or  above  to  which  he  can  grow. 
Search  the  universe  from  end  to  end,  in  nature,  or  in 
history,  God  you  will  not  find  ;  but,  if  you  keep  a  mind 
at  all,  two  things  only  you  will  find  to  live  by — Christ 
and  yourself. 

With  Christ,  all  life  through,  you  may  grow  into  the 
joy,  the  understanding,  the  trust  of  Christ's  life  and 


172    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


suffering,  victory  and  triumph  ;  but  only  if  conscious  of 
weakness  and  nothingness,  you  can  beheve  that  just 
that  weakness  is  in  Christ  exalted  and  just  that  nothing- 
ness has  by  Him  been  filled.  And  it  is  the  historic  Jesus 
Christ,  Who  is  the  same  yesterday  and  to-day  and  for 
ever, — the  same  to  men  of  all  capacities,  not  less  my 
Saviour  because  I  understand  so  little  than  of  the  saint 
who  can  understand  so  much. 

A  spiritual  life,  rightly  growing  in  humility  and  trust, 
is  therefore  possible  for  us  just  because  it  rests  upon  the 
coming  of  Christ,  not  as  some  natural  result  of  our 
human  effort,  thought,  feeling,  but  as  the  super- 
natural gift  of  God  Himself.  We  can  make  so  much  of 
it  just  because  we  can  make  so  little  of  it.  It  lifts  us 
above  ourselves,  just  because  it  has  a  reality  indepen- 
dent of  our  making.  But  if  we  realise  that,  my  ques- 
tion still  remains.  Is  this  whole  idea  now  gone  from 
our  daily  life  ?  If  thought  and  feeling — helped  by 
imaginative  memory — reign  as  the  sole  road  of  spiritual 
attainment,  whatever  may  have  been  the  case  once,  it 
is  woe  to  the  dull  and  feeble,  woe  to  the  common  man, 
woe  to  all  those  who  are  weak  in  these  mighty  and 
redeeming  powers. 

The  Church  has  maintained  and  still  maintains  that 
there  is  for  us  to-day  equally  a  super-natural  Presence 
of  Christ,  which  is  a  gift  and  super-natural  in  so  far 
that  it  is  not  a  result  consequent  upon  any  state  of  ours. 
Our  faith  and  our  spiritual  effort  are  conditions  of  the 
appreciation,  assimilation,  use,  of  what  is  given  ;  they 
are  not  conditions  of  the  Presence  itself. 

Whatever  is  given  to  human  experience,  bound  in 
time  and  place,  must,  however,  imply  some  human 
agency.  That  is  true  even  of  the  incarnation  and  the 
atonement,  for  Jesus  Christ  is  "  born  of  the  Virgin 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  173 


Mary,"  and  "  suffers  under  Pontius  Pilate  "  at  the 
hands  of  these  particular  soldiers.  But  the  human  act 
supplies  only  the  occasion  ;  it  qualifies  or  determines 
the  time  or  place  ;  it  does  not  condition  the  nature  of 
what  is  done.  The  Virgin  Mary  does  not  add  her  holi- 
ness to  that  of  the  Only  Begotten  Son  of  God  ;  nor  does 
Pilate  add  anything  to  the  saving  virtue  of  the  Cross. 

So  also  it  is  of  the  priest.  As  he  brings  nothing  of 
his  own,  it  is  necessary  only  that  he  should  have  been 
appointed  as  God's  agent  of  time  and  place.  To  this 
the  form  of  appointment  bears  witness.  The  bishop 
in  ordaining  him  is  merely  an  agent  in  handing  to  the 
priest  that  one  power  which  he  is  to  exercise,  and  the 
power  of  giving  that  power  is  one  which  the  bishop  in 
his  turn  received.  From  first  to  last,  the  agency  not 
less  than  the  result,  everything  witnesses  to  the  act  and 
gift  of  God.  There  may  be  other  things  which  make 
the  priest  too  great  a  power  in  the  Christian  life,  but 
this  by  itself  makes  him  a  very  small  thing,  almost 
without  personality  or  independence. 

Here  then  is  a  single  uniform  idea.  We  can  escape 
from  it  in  three  ways. 

(1)  We  can  deny  that,  since  the  Ascension,  there  is 
any  Presence  of  Christ  other  than  we  are  capable  of 
making  for  ourselves  when  we  will.  If,  however,  men 
have  so  great  a  capacity  of  reaching  to  God,  it  does  not 
appear  why  they  should  at  any  time  have  needed  any- 
thing else. 

(2)  We  may  allow  there  is  a  Presence  here,  but  that 
it  is  made  by  each  communicant  for  himself.  That, 
however,  is  contrary  to  the  idea  of  a  "  gift,"  which 
must  come  to  us  as  God's  act  and  not  ours.  Further, 
it  implies  almost  inevitably  that  the  gift  is  conditioned 
by  degrees  of  worthiness  or  capacity  to  attain.  But 


174    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Presence,  in  all  ordinary  use  of  the  term,  is  not  of 
degree. 

(3)  There  are,  I  believe,  some  who  accept  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  Real  Presence  as  we  do,  but  contend  that  the 
power  to  consecrate  is  given  by  the  congregation  to  one 
whom  it  chooses  as  its  representatives.  But  this  view 
has  the  same  inconsistency  as  the  last.  We  are  speak- 
ing of  a  certain  Presence  of  God,  which  is  the  gift  of 
His  tenderness  alike  to  the  individual  and  to  the 
Church.  It  cannot  therefore  be  made  by  our  act 
either  .  "dividually  or  collectively. 

In  effect,  even  where  men  have  for  a  time  separated 
the  two,  the  belief  in  a  real  sacramental  Presence  and 
gift  and  the  belief  in  a  sacramental  Episcopacy  have 
by  an  inexorable  human  logic  always  gone  together. 
Wherever  the  Episcopal  ministry  has  been  rejected,  the 
sacramental  belief  has  failed.  Wherever  belief  in  a 
sacramental  gift  has  been  weakened,  Episcopacy  has 
been  defended  as  a  convenience  or  compromised  as  a 
question  of  minor  importance. 

On  our  side  then  the  question  of  sacraments  is  the 
primary  question  at  issue.  The  question  of  Episcopacy 
is  merely  a  necessary  factor  of  the  sacramental  position. 
Why  we  hold  sacraments  to  be  so  necessary  I  explained 
in  more  detail  in  my  first  part,  but  I  thought  it  worth 
while  to  review  the  argument  that  we  might  have  its 
real  meaning  before  our  minds  now  that  we  were  con- 
sidering the  ecclesiastical  side.  Strongly  as  Non- 
Conformists  may  differ  from  us  on  the  sacramental 
question,  I  believe  the  question  of  Episcopal  rule  is 
that  with  which  their  minds  are  more  concerned.  I 
must  try  therefore  to  explain  what  I  take  to  be  the 
relation  between  the  Episcopacy  of  grace  and  the 
Episcopacy  of  rule,  how  far  each  goes  and  how  far 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  175 


either  can  be  limited.  That  will  depend  on  our  idea 
of  the  position  of  the  sacramental  sphere  in  the  general 
life  of  the  Church.  I  will  try  to  discuss  the  main  prin- 
ciples of  the  relation  in  this  chapter,  leaving  the  prac- 
tical working  out  for  the  next.  It  will  perhaps  help  to 
clear  away  some  confusions,  if  I  take  certain  much 
discussed  points  first. 

(i)  The  Church  distinguishes  very  clearly  between 
the  method  of  appointing  or  selecting  her  clergy,  and 
the  gift  of  the  powers  they  are  to  exercise.  Appoint- 
ment belongs  to  the  Church  "  order,"  the  general  life 
of  the  Church.  Since  the  clergy  are  to  minister  to  the 
Church,  they  are  selected  by  her  or  by  someone  who 
acts  on  her  behalf.  The  methods  employed  are  almost 
infinitely  varied. 

Originally  the  bishop  was  chosen  by  the  whole 
Church  of  which  he  was  the  pastor.  When  the  diocese 
increased,  he  was  chosen  by  the  clergy  of  whom  he  was 
the  leader.  In  England  the  formal  election  is  made  by 
the  Cathedral  clergy,  who  represent  the  original  body 
of  the  clergy  of  the  diocese,  not  assigned  to  parishes. 
In  all  the  more  modern  Churches  he  is  appointed  by 
the  representative  diocesan  synod.  In  some  cases  the 
bishops  of  the  province  or  district  claimed  a  right  to 
appoint,  since  the  province  formed  one  whole  Church. 
In  England  and  many  other  countries,  the  king  "  nomi- 
nates," though  he  does  not  appoint,  acting  as  the 
representative  layman  of  the  National  Church. 

In  general  it  is  left  to  the  bishop  to  choose  the 
clergy,  but  of  old,  at  least  in  some  cases,  they  were 
chosen  by  the  people.  The  superior  of  a  Roman 
Order  has,  I  believe,  a  recognised  right  to  put  forward 
members  of  his  community  for  ordination  within  the 
Community. 


176    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


While  appointment  is  so  varied  in  its  methods,  there 
has  never  at  any  time  of  which  we  have  real  knowledge 
been  any  change  in  the  rule  that  a  bishop  becomes  a 
bishop  by  being  consecrated  by  bishops,  and  a  priest 
becomes  a  priest  by  being  ordained  by  a  bishop.  On 
a  well-known  occasion  a  certain  person  was  appointed 
bishop  by  what  was  afterwards  held  to  be  an  invalid 
procedure,  and  he  was  consecrated.  The  diocese  re- 
fused to  accept  him,  and  he  never  in  fact  entered  his 
diocese.  Having  been  consecrated,  however,  no  one 
questioned  that  he  was  a  bishop,  and  on  some  occasions 
elsewhere  he  so  acted.  Similarly,  *  assistant-bishops  ' 
are  bishops  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word,  but  they  have 
no  ruling  authority  at  all.  In  all  ways,  therefore,  the 
sacramental  power,  the  right  to  exercise  it,  and  the 
authority  of  rule  must  be  kept  as  separate  questions. 
Episcopacy  of  necessity  only  requires  the  first. 

(2)  One  of  the  most  difficult  questions  we  have  to 
meet  is  in  the  recognition  of  the  *  validity '  of  one 
another's  ministry.  The  main  subject  I  want  to  work 
out  in  this  second  part  is  the  way  in  which  such  a  recog- 
nition could  come  about.  It  is  naturally  a  very  painful 
subject,  and,  unless  we  are  clear  about  the  points 
involved,  it  may  end  in  a  mere  wrangle.  Unfortun- 
ately, through  our  not  having  recognised  that  the 
spiritual  question  of  the  sacrament  was  different  from 
the  question  of  rule  and  order,  and  that  the  former  was 
the  really  fundamental,  the  question  has  become  very 
tangled  indeed.  In  studying  Non-Conformity  from 
without,  I  ventured  to  suggest  that  Non-Conformists 
seem  to  us  not  quite  clear  as  to  which  of  two  positions 
they  did  mean  to  take  up.  Here  I  think  the  blame  of 
the  confusion  lies  with  us.  Though,  to  my  mind  at 
least,  the  Church  position  is  clear  enough,  we  have 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  177 


certainly  not  been  clear  about  it,  nor  made  ourselves 
understood. 

One  very  real  difficulty  to  an  open-minded  com- 
prehension of  one  another's  position,  I  should  be  very 
glad  if  we  could  clear  away  at  the  start.  Suppose  an 
Episcopalian  holds  that  Episcopacy  was  constituted  as 
a  divinely  ordered  centre  of  authority  for  the  Church, 
it  will  follow  that  while  the  Non-Episcopalians  can 
recognise  an  Episcopalian  ministry  as  good  for  those 
whom  it  suits,  the  Episcopalian  could  only  regard  the 
Non-Episcopalian  ministry  as  a  breach  of  God's  order. 
Whether  there  is  such  a  divine  order,  is  a  matter  of  fair 
discussion.  The  Episcopalian  may  be  quite  wrong,  but 
what  is  gained  by  calling  him  *  narrow-minded '  ? 
Many,  or  all,  doctors  hold  that  the  infection  of  malaria 
is  communicated  only  by  the  bite  of  an  anopheles 
mosquito.  I  have  heard  colonists  assert  their  con- 
viction that  there  are  other  ways  of  infection.  That 
also  is  a  question  for  fair  discussion,  but  I  never  heard 
anyone  try  to  settle  it  by  saying  that  the  doctors  were 
narrow-minded.  May  I  not  ask  that  a  reasoned  posi- 
tion shall  be  met  by  reason  and  not  by  epithets  ?  I 
ask  this  with  the  better  claim,  because  that  position, 
which  many  Episcopalians  do  take  up,  does  not  repre- 
sent a  line  which  I  mean  to  press. 

It  seems  to  me  that,  for  want  of  a  clear  distinction 
between  sacraments  and  order,  the  question  has  become 
involved  through  a  further  confusion  between  the  words 

*  valid,'  *  right '  and  *  effective.'  Now,  if  at  a  private 
meeting  a  man  insists  on  speaking  against  the  will  of 
the  chairman,  he  has  no  '  right '  to  do  so,  but  his 
remarks  may  be  very  *  effective  '  all  the  same.  There 
would  be  no  sense  in  saying  that  his  remarks  were 

*  invalid,'  though  a  resolution  he  proposed  very  well 

M 


178    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


might  be.  Valid  is  a  legal  word  to  be  used  with  exacti- 
tude. A  vote,  a  will,  a  deed,  an  Act  of  Parliament, 
may  be  ineffective,  because  nobody  carries  them  out, 
and  they  may  be  wrong  because  nobody  ought  to  carry 
them  out,  and  yet  they  are  valid,  nor  is  their  validity 
affected  by  questions  of  rightness  and  effectiveness. 

These  distinctions  are  of  importance.  Episcopalians, 
even  if  they  are  not  always  conscious  of  it,  are  thinking 
primarily  of  sacraments.  The  Non-Conformists  are 
thinking  primarily  of  preaching.  In  what  sense  then 
are  we  asked  to  recognise  the  Non-Conformist  ministry  ? 
I  certainly  do  not  deny,  and  I  have  never  met  any 
Episcopalian  who  denied,  that  their  preaching  was 
effective  in  bringing  souls  to  the  love  of  God.  Whether 
it  is  as  effective  as  ours  I  do  not  know  and  I  have  no 
desire  to  judge.  I  hope  it  is  much  more  effective, 
though  I  still  think  it  loses  a  certain  amount  of  effective- 
ness through  the  absence  of  sacramental  presentment. 

But  if  I  am  to  admit  that  the  Non-Conformist 
ministry  is  as  valid  as  our  own,  I  must  assign  to  it  a 
power  which  its  own  members  disclaim.  So  far  as  this 
goes,  therefore,  Episcopalians  admit  the  effectiveness 
which  Non-Conformists  claim  for  their  ministry.  The 
Non-Conformists  do  not  admit  the  validity  specially 
claimed  by  the  Episcopalian  ministry. 

(3)  The  question  whether  bishops  are  necessary  to 
the  esse  or  to  the  bene  esse  of  a  church  is  sometimes 
discussed  among  Episcopalians.  I  do  not  think  Non- 
Conformists  feel  much  concerned,  yet  I  think  it  is 
worth  discussing  here  because  it  throws  a  good  deal  of 
light  on  that  distinction  between  the  two  sides  of  sacra- 
ment and  government  which  Episcopalians  as  well  as 
Non-Conformists  are  so  apt  to  confuse. 

In  regard  to  the  sacraments,  all  *  Catholics  *  would 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  179 


maintain  unhesitatingly  that  Episcopal  ordination  for 
priests  was  a  necessity  of  any  valid  consecration  of  the 
Presence  of  Christ,  and  valid  sacraments  are  necessary 
to  the  being  of  a  Church. 

Many  would  say  that  Episcopal  government  was  also 
a  necessity  of  the  Church.  I  do  not,  however,  think 
this  can  be  consistently  maintained.  Thus,  we  might 
feel  that  the  old  Irish  Church  where  the  abbot  ruled 
the  bishop,  or  some  unhappy  parish  where  the  squire 
ruled  the  rector,  was  in  a  very  wrong  state,  but  so  long 
as  the  sacraments  were  '  duly  ministered  in  all  things 
that  are  of  necessity  requisite  to  the  same,'  we  should 
not  deny  that  it  was  a  Church. 

The  words  esse  and  bene  esse  describe  very  well  the 
difference  between  validity  and  effectiveness.  Esse, — 
the  thing  is  so  or  it  is  not.  The  ordinations  of  a  bishop 
are  quite  clear  acts  ;  they  are  valid.  They  do  give  a 
priest  power  to  do  this  thing.  And  the  consecration 
is  valid  ;  it  does  create  this  presence.  Bene, — it  is  more 
or  less  well.  Episcopal  government  has  certain  advan- 
tages ;  it  is  more  or  less  effective.  In  any  case,  effec- 
tiveness has  nothing  to  do  with  the  '  historic  '  nature 
of  the  episcopate,  for  the  advantages  of  such  rule  will 
not  be  very  different  from  those  of  a  Lutheran  '  superin- 
tendency,'  or  a  Methodist  episcopacy. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  the  Church  has  dealt  with  these 
two  sides  very  differently.  The  rule  of  the  bishop  has 
been  qualified  in  a  multitude  of  ways.  First,  it  has 
been  qualified  from  above.  The  bishop  must  keep  the 
canons  or  rules  of  the  synod  of  his  province.  Very 
often  it  has  been  qualified  in  various  degrees  by  the 
authority  of  superior  bishops — of  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
of  the  patriarchs,  archbishops  and  so  forth.  Secondly, 
it  has  been  qualified,  also  in  various  degrees,  from 


i8o    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


below,  by  the  rights  of  the  people  and  the  clergy.  The 
Church  never  regarded  the  bishop  as  a  sole  unquestioned 
autocrat  in  his  own  right.  So  far  as  that  idea  has 
obtained  amongst  us,  it  is  a  result  of  our  peculiar 
*  legalism.' 

As  regards  the  sacramental  side  of  the  office,  the 
Church  has  never  varied  one  particle.  A  valid  sacra- 
mental Presence  in  communion  can  be  consecrated  only 
by  one  ordained  thereto,  and  he  can  be  ordained  only  by 
one — or  several — who  have  received  that  special  power 
of  ordination  by  those  who  had  received  it  before  them. 
This  rule,  I  might  say,  is  recognised  by — very  nearly — 
everybody,  for  Non-Episcopalians,  rejecting  the  rule, 
have  always  in  the  end,  if  not  at  first,  rejected  also  the 
idea  of  *  validity  '  in  the  sacrament. 

(4)  In  a  paragraph  above  we  considered  vahdity 
and  effectiveness,  but  I  left  the  term  right  for  further 
consideration,  because  it  was  not  merely  the  most 
important,  but  the  most  complex.  I  do  not  think 
one  can  give  it  a  simple  answer.  With  it  I  will  take 
the  difficult  words,  Church  and  schism,  which  are  much 
simpler. 

Certainly  I,  with  all  Episcopalians,  hold  valid  sacra- 
ments to  be  a  necessity  of  the  Church.  Nothing  can  be 
a  Church  without  them,  and  I  hold  this  for  two  reasons. 
First,  I  hold  this  reality  to  be  an  indispensable  spiritual 
need  of  the  Christian  faith.  I  have  given  my  grounds 
for  that  very  fully.  But  there  is  a  second  reason.  If 
we  look  at  our  mental  processes,  theories,  observations, 
inferences,  on  any  subject,  we  may  say  :  *  all  this  mental 
activity  implies  a  reality,  which  is  beyond  itself,  prior 
to  itself.  Our  thinking  implies  something  thought 
about.'  We  might  say  with  the  witty  man,  that 
reality  is  so  necessary  to  us  that  *  if  it  did  not  exist  we 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  i8i 

should  have  to  invent  it.'  That,  of  course,  is  only  a 
joke,  for  we  have  to  recognise  that  it  is  of  the  very 
essence  of  reality  that  we  cannot  invent  it.  We  must 
seek  it,  and  learn  it.  This,  which  is  the  truth  of  all 
science,  is  the  truth  likewise  of  the  Incarnation  and  of 
the  Sacrament.  Human  need  is  the  ground  of  their 
preciousness,  but  human  need  is  not  the  ground  of 
their  being.  They  are,  only  because  God  makes  them 
so.  Holding  this  view  of  their  necessity,  I  could  not 
consistently  admit  that  Non-Conformist  bodies  were 
Churches. 

Further,  to  admit  that  the  Non-Conformist  bodies 
were  Churches  would  be  to  admit  there  could  be 
several  Churches  of  Christ  in  one  place,  and  this  would 
be  to  give  up  the  hope  of  unity. 

I  do  not  think  that  I  need  be  misunderstood  here.  I 
think  my  brethren  will  recognise  that  my  view  of 
sacraments  is  at  least  reasonable,  I  have  given  many 
reasons  for  it.  I  think  they  will  admit  that  from  my 
reasons  I  could  not  reasonably  come  to  any  other  con- 
clusion. Similarly,  I  could  not  call  any  Non-Confor- 
mist body  *  a  Church,'  since  I  hold  that  the  Church  is 
one — except  in  the  sense  of  local  divisions,  as  the 
Church  in  London  is  different  from  the  Church  in  New 
York. 

It  would  be  different  if  I  were  asked  to  say  they  were 
*  part  of  the  Church.'  That  brings  me  to  the  question 
of  the  term  schism,  and  here  also  I  will  be  perfectly 
frank.  I  hope  I  can  trust  my  brethren  too  well  to  be 
afraid  to  say  what  I  honestly  think  for  fear  I  should 
hurt  their  feelings.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  anyone 
can  call  the  Non-Conformists  schismatics.  They  have 
not  '  left  the  Church.'  They  are,  for  the  most  part, 
what  they  have  always  been. 


i82    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Is  a  Non-Conformity  schismatical  ?  '  That  is  a  dif- 
ferent question.  If  we  take  schism  in  its  strict  meaning, 
then  I  think  we  must  say  at  least  that  our  separation 
constitutes  a  schism.  The  word,  however,  in  our 
mind  imphes  an  act  of  fault,  and  all  Churchmen  recog- 
nise that  if  men  are  driven  out  of  the  Church  by 
unreasonable  demands,  the  sin  or  act  of  schism  is 
committed  by  those  who  drove  them  out.  The  driving 
out  of  the  Non- Jurors  constituted  an  act  of  schism,  but 
the  fault  lay  with  the  State,  and  with  those  who 
exercised  authority  on  behalf  of  the  Church.  The 
separation  of  the  Non-Conformists  from  the  Church 
therefore  formed  a  schism,  but  who  was  guilty  of  com- 
mitting that  act  I  am  not  competent,  and  I  have  no 
desire,  to  judge.  No  doubt  there  are  people  who  do 
not  see  any  disadvantage  in  our  present  condition  of 
separation.  The  larger  number,  who  realise  it  as  an 
evil,  might  express  themselves  differently,  but  I  believe 
they  and  I  are  here  substantially  agreed. 

So  far  then  as  '  right '  implies  a  judgment  on  the  past, 
we  can  leave  it  on  one  side.  We  are  only  concerned 
with  it  as  it  affects  our  next  steps.  The  common  man 
would  sum  us  up  by  saying  that  we  were  both  right  and 
both  wrong.  I  believe,  once  more,  that  most  of  us 
agree.  But  our  agreement  is  no  use  to  us  till  we  can 
find  which  is  the  right  we  ought  to  learn,  and  which  is 
the  wrong  that  we  must  give  up. 

If,  now,  we  look  back  at  all  the  questions  we  have 
discussed,  we  shall  see  that  in  every  case,  there  is  the 
same  distinction  constantly  recurring.  I  urged  first 
that  we  must  distinguish  between  the  gift  of  God  and 
our  appreciation  of  it  or  response  to  it.  If  our  faith  in 
God  is  to  have  any  meaning,  we  must  not  imagine  that 
our  response  makes  the  gift.    We  can  apply  to  this  a 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  183 


phrase  we  have  just  discussed.  The  gift  is  the  prior 
reahty,  the  thing  which  is.  The  response  is  bene,  more 
or  less  well,  made.  Christ  by  His  death  made  for  us  one 
perfect  propitiation,  atonement,  reconciliation  with  the 
Father.  We  enter  into  it  by  faith,  or  we  reject  it  by 
unbelief ;  but  we  are  not  doing  something,  we  are 
appropriating  or  rejecting  a  reconciliation  made,  which 
already  is. 

Turning  to  religious  practice,  I  pointed  out  that  this 
distinction  of  the  gift  was  what  we  claimed  for  the 
sacraments,  and  that  to  them  we  applied  the  word 
'  valid,*  as  denoting  the  actuality  or  reality  in  itself  of 
what  was  given,  independently  of  our  use.  There  is  also 
an  activity  of  the  soul  which  proceeds  from  God's  gifts, 
for  while  faith  is  a  reception  of  something,  faith  also 
goes  forth  in  action.  In  our  common  religion  these 
two  sides  correspond  to  worship  and  preaching.  Wor- 
ship is  the  true  inward  act  of  receptive  faith,  the 
acknowledgment  of  and  looking  to  what  is.  Sacra- 
mental worship  is,  of  course,  not  the  only  kind  of 
worship,  but  on  our  view  of  the  sacrament  it  is  much  the 
highest  and  most  perfect  form,  since  the  object  of 
worship  is  presented  to  us,  and  not  merely  found  in  our- 
selves. There  is  a  good  deal  of  experience  to  show  that 
the  habit  of  worship — as  distinct  from  intercession — is 
always  weaker  where  the  sacramental  belief  is  not  held. 

Still  less  could  we  take  preaching  as  the  only  form 
of  the  external  activity  of  faith,  but  if  we  take  preach- 
ing in  its  widest  sense,  it  is  a  very  important,  perhaps 
the  most  important,  form  of  that  activity,  and  in  a 
peculiar  sense  it  voices  the  activity  of  faith,  reflects, 
inspires,  guides,  explains,  aU  its  forms.  I  will  take  the 
sacraments  and  preaching  as  types  of  the  two  sides  of 
ecclesiastical  life  which  we  have  to  consider. 


i84    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


There  are  then  in  the  Christian  hfe  two  different 
ideas,  gift  and  response,  which  have  in  rehgion  two 
different  presentments,  and  in  the  Church  two  different 
ministries.  Here  is  the  ministry  of  consecration, 
whereby  men  are  duly  authorised  to  do  that  which  God 
has  commanded  to  be  done  on  behalf  of  His  people. 
Here  is  the  ministry  of  preaching,  wherein  men  by  the 
inspiration  of  God's  Spirit  are  enabled  to  stir  up  the 
thoughts  and  feehngs  of  their  brethren.  Though  differ- 
ent, it  is  not  necessary  that  these  should  be  separated. 
Is  it,  however,  desirable  ? 

In  the  first  place,  I  think  for  many  reasons  that  it  is 
not  desirable  they  should  be  altogether  sundered.  A 
sacramental  ministry  entirely  confined  to  formal  duties 
would  soon  become  very  unspiritual.  Sacraments  and 
preaching  are  part  of  one  life,  and  we  must  not  let 
people  get  an  idea  that  there  is  an  opposition  between 
the  two.  Certainly  the  official  or  sacramental  ministry 
must  be  also  a  preaching  ministry. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  even  more  undesirable 
that  the  sacramental  and  preaching  ministry  should  be 
simply  identified.  If  anyone  does  so,  he  knows  little  of 
their  true  nature,  or  of  their  innate  difference.  The 
official  act  is  essentially  simple.  '  Take,  eat,  this  is 
my  body.'  In  one  sense,  like  the  death  of  Christ,  it 
holds  all  the  mystery  of  life.  You  may  ponder  it  for 
years  and  find  new  meanings ;  you  may  worship  for 
five  minutes  and  It  lies  before  you  complete  in  one  act. 
One  celebration  of  what  the  old  Fathers  used  to  call 
'  the  Divine  Mysteries '  is  just  the  same  as  another. 

Preaching,  however,  is  infinitely  varied  with  all  the 
variety,  not  of  the  presentment  of  the  mystery,  but  of 
our  pondering  upon  the  mystery  presented,  varied  with 
all  the  variety  of  application  and  meaning  any  of  us 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES 


185 


can  learn  there  to  see.  Fifty  men  may  each  preach 
fifty  times  from  the  same  text  and  never  have  one 
sentence  in  common.  The  presentment  to  our  worship 
of  God's  own  gift,  the  gift  of  His  Presence,  is  of  God's 
own  agent,  but  as  the  appreciation,  the  understanding 
that  comes  of  reverent  pondering,  is  the  response  God 
looks  for  in  all,  so  it  is  for  all  to  speak  of  that  which  God 
has  given  them.  There  is  no  least  and  shyest  school- 
boy who  ought  not  to  be  ready,  deeply  blushing,  to 
speak  of  Jesus  Christ  when  the  time  is. 

That,  of  course,  is  not  the  same  as  public  speaking, 
but  there  is  no  real  line  of  division  between  the  two.  If 
every  man  speaks  of  God  as  opportunity  offers — and 
no  one  will  deny  that  he  ought  to  do  so — the  oppor- 
tunities will  depend  very  much  on  his  ability.  One 
man  speaks  to  his  friends  and  companions.  If  he  has 
things  to  say  worth  listening  to,  his  friends'  friends  will 
come  to  hear  them.  If  they  are  very  much  worth 
listening  to,  he  will  speak  in  the  market  square  or  the 
town-hall  or  any  other  place. 

I  am  much  more  concerned  with  another  argument 
that  this  speaking  or  preaching — there  is  no  funda- 
mental difference  between  them — is  not  the  same  as 
official  preaching.  I  maintained  that  the  sacramental 
ministry  must  for  its  own  sake  also  be  a  preaching 
ministry.  The  priest  is  always  and  above  all  an 
official,  and  I  am  going  to  maintain  that  there  must 
be  an  official  preaching.  The  arguments  which  to  my 
mind  prove  that  it  has  a  real  place  in  the  Church,  to 
my  mind  also  prove  that  it  is  a  limited  place. 

The  clergy  constitute  a  separate  official  caste.  When 
I  am  speaking  of  my  own  cause,  I  am  quite  willing  to 
let  offensive  terms  like  *  caste  '  stand.  We  ought  not 
to  haggle  over  words,  nor  to  let  ourselves  be  scared  by 


i86    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


their  ugliness.  Let  us  consider  what  a  separated  caste- 
priesthood  really  means,  and  can  do.  We  shall  find  all 
its  essential  features  reproduced  even  in  the  most 
Protestant  missions.  The  English  missionaries, 
amongst  their  Indian  and  African  converts,  are  a  caste 
and  professionals  and  officials.  They  think  differently, 
live  differently,  are  paid  differently,  from  their  people. 
We  can  see  that  this  has  its  disadvantages,  but  it  has 
also  its  effectiveness.  It  is  a  gain  that  the  growing 
Church  should  have  in  its  midst  a  number  of  men  who 
can  suggest  to  it  other  and  quite  different  ways  of  look- 
ing at  things.  It  is  even  a  necessity,  for  in  that  growing 
life  there  is  a  very  real  danger  lest  our  converts  should 
allow  their  Christianity  to  slide  back  into  a  mere  phase 
of  Hinduism  or  Fetichism.  It  probably  would  do 
so  if  it  were  not  for  the  stubbornness  of  the  English 
difference.  The  missionaries  keep  clear  the  line  of  the 
Christian  distinction. 

This  does  not  arise  entirely  from  the  incomplete 
grasp  of  newly  won  faith.  It  is  a  universal  law.  The 
parson  is  narrow,  professional.  Religion  dominated  by 
clericalism  becomes  irrational  and  unreal,  full  of  dog- 
matisms hard  to  be  understood  and  of  rules  grievous  to 
be  borne.  Be  it  so.  The  layman's  religion  is  broad, 
practical,  genial.  Yes,  but  there  is  a  reservation.  It 
is  natural  and  right  that  the  religion  which  a  man  has 
to  use  in  a  practical  world  should  have  in  it  a  vein  of 
utilitarianism,  yet  that  utilitarianism,  which  is  so 
healthy  and  genial,  is  always  in  danger  of  losing  that 
very  character  which  none  the  less  gives  it  all  its  life 
and  meaning.  The  harvest  of  the  apple  tree  grows  on 
the  branches  in  the  sight  of  the  sun  and  of  all  men. 
The  root  is  a  very  wooden  affair — twisted,  tough, 
without  commercial  value ;  but  in  the  winter  storms, 


THE  RELATION  OF  PRINCIPLES  187 


when  blossom,  fruit  and  leaves  are  all  gone,  it  holds  on, 
or  you  will  have  no  apples  at  all.  All  officials  and  all 
professionals,  and  we  parsons  among  the  number,  are 
trying  people.  They  look  at  things  so  differently,  but 
that  is  what  they  are  for.  The  really  unfortunate  part 
is  that  things  want  looking  at  differently  ;  geniality  is 
a  charming  virtue,  but  sometimes  we  must  be  business- 
like. The  clergy  is  also  appointed  to  preach.  Its 
preaching  is  likely  to  be  of  a  kind  less  inspiring  than  that 
of  the  enthusiasts,  but  it  will  have  qualities  not  less 
necessary. 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY. 

Merely  that  the  length  of  the  chapter  may  not  be 
tedious,  I  have  thought  it  better  to  divide  my  subject 
at  this  point.  We  can  start  on  the  examination  of  the 
work  of  the  ministry  with  a  fresh  mind. 

The  official  ministry  has  first  to  re-present  Christ  to 
us  in  the  renewing  of  His  Presence  as  the  basis  of  our 
religious  life,  but  we  look  to  it  also  for  an  official  preach- 
ing, which  shall  explain  what  has  been  done,  which  shall 
set  before  us  in  words  those  fundamental  principles 
which  the  sacraments  effect  by  act,  but  which  in  life 
lose  the  sharp  edge  of  their  distinction  all  too  easily. 

Fundamentals  are  very  precious  things,  but  we  live 
from  them,  we  must  not  cramp  our  life  in  them.  The 
official  preaching  may  be  necessary,  but  it  is  not  all  we 
require.  Official  preaching  is  not  an  entirely  easy 
thing.  It  must  be  lucid,  or  we  shall  not  understand  it ; 
it  must  be  interesting,  or  we  shall  be  bored  ;  practical, 
or  we  shall  not  be  able  to  use  it ;  earnest,  or  we  shall 
grow  indifferent.  But,  above  all,  it  must  be  correct, 
orthodox. 

Beyond  this  efficient  exposition  of  fundamentals  lies 
another  sphere  which  we  might  describe  as  that  of 
originality  and  inspiration.  W^e  are  first  of  all  Chris- 
tians, and  the  essential  nature  of  Christianity  remains 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  189 


a  fixed  constant  in  all  ages,  yet  Christianity  is  a  life. 
It  must  be  therefore  a  progress  ;  its  form  is  full  of 
meanings  and  applications  which  are  waiting  to  be 
realised.  This  is  the  place  of  originality,  of  develop- 
ment, of  what  I  called  *  freedom.'  We  are  not, 
however,  all  original  thinkers.  Many  of  us,  to  be  quite 
frank,  are  rather  stupid  and  indeed  rather  lazy.  Those 
to  whom  God  has  given  the  gift  of  *  vision  '  must — I 
will  not  say,  do  our  thinking  for  us — but  teach  us  how 
to  think,  stir  us  up  to  the  joy  of  learning  new  things. 
This  is  the  work  of  inspiration. 

May  not  the  official  preaching  be  original  and  inspir- 
ing ?  Perhaps  it  may,  and  there  are  pretty  sure  to  be 
officials  who  will  be ;  nevertheless  this  is  not  what  we 
ought  to  look  for.  There  are  reasons  why  it  will  be 
difficult  and  even  undesirable  that  the  official  preaching 
should  excel  in  those  qualities. 

Originality  is  in  all  cases  individual ;  it  belongs  to 
individual  abilities.  But  official  preaching  must  be 
first  of  all  official,  and  we  ask  of  the  official  primarily 
that  he  should  let  us  know,  not  what  he  himself  thinks, 
but  what  is  the  message  which  has  been  committed  to 
him.  We  ask  our  statesmen  to  devise  new  ways  of 
meeting  new  situations.  But  we  ask  lawyers  and 
judges  only  to  tell  us  how  the  old  legal  principles  apply 
to  tangled  circumstances.  An  official  who  is  brilliant 
and  original  is  a  rather  confusing  person,  for  it  is  hard 
to  tell  how  much  is  his  own  and  how  much  is  really  of 
authority.  An  official  may  be  inspiring,  but  it  is 
rather  his  business  to  be  critical  of  inspirations.  He  is 
not  there  to  lead  us  up  the  road,  but  rather  to  warn  us 
when  a  road  which  looks  tempting  is  leading  us  away 
from  our  true  direction.  We  are  not  bound  to  take  his 
voice  as  infallible,  nor  is  his  authority  absolute,  yet  it  is 


igo    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


always  of  authority,  it  is  always  of  the  necessary  prin- 
ciples, that  he  ought  primarily  to  be  speaking  and 
reminding  us. 

It  is  really  curious  to  notice  how  little  consciousness 
we  have  of  the  principles  on  which  we  are  all  acting. 
I  am  going  to  examine  two  cases,  (i)  The  bishop  is 
the  supreme  official,  the  supreme  representative  of  the 
official  system.  Churchmen  deplore  amongst  them- 
selves that  the  bishops  do  not  lead.  They  are  cautious 
and  timid  ;  they  are  always  the  last  to  move  ;  they  are 
a  drag  on  the  wheels.  Non-Conformists  may  be 
excused  for  scoffing — 'And  this  is  the  authority  to 
which  we  are  asked  to  submit  our  freedom  !  '  Though 
Church  historians  tell  another  tale,  it  must  be  admitted 
that  modern  historians  give  the  bishops  and  their 
councils  a  very  bad  record. 

I  am  going  to  take  a  very  daring  course.  I  contend 
that  that  is  all  just  as  it  should  be,  that  in  any  case  it 
is  inevitable,  and,  in  spite  of  our  grumbling,  that  it  is 
just  as  we  want  it  to  be.  In  the  first  place,  the  bishop 
ought  not  to  be  a  leader.  New  ventures  and  new  ideas 
imply  a  risk.  They  cannot  be  more  than  an  experi- 
ment. The  risks  ought  to  be  taken  and  the  experi- 
ments made  by  little  people  who  have  nothing  to  lose 
except  themselves.  The  big  people,  with  big  responsi- 
bilities, must  watch  from  a  distance.  They  must  come 
and  reap  the  benefits  only  of  assured  successes.  This 
is  good  Trustee  Law.  It  is  part  of  the  price  paid  for 
high  office  that  you  must  leave  the  joy  of  adventure 
to  others. 

Again,  it  is  inevitable.  The  bishop  is  not  only  the 
official  head  of  the  whole,  he  is  the  representative  of 
the  whole.  Now  the  people  with  original  ideas  are  few, 
but  the  whole  consists  mostly  of  a  number  of  very 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  191 


conservative  people,  who  are  not  very  quick  at  thinking, 
and  who  are  too  busy  to  have  much  time  for  it.  It  is 
this  mass  whom  the  bishop  represents  and  for  whom  he 
acts.  If  he  is  ready  to  jump  at  new  proposals,  he  will 
not  represent  them.  And  it  is  no  use  his  taking  up 
ideas  till  people  are  ready  to  move. 

Of  course  bishops  will  make  mistakes,  like  anybody 
else,  and  put  the  brake  on  the  wrong  things.  Does  this 
do  any  real  harm  ?  If  a  new  idea  is  really  worth  any- 
thing, it  will  generally  win  through  without  being  much 
the  worse  for  a  little  discouragement.  At  least  it  is  a 
very  effective  reminder  to  the  clever  and  original 
people  that  they  are  not  the  lords  of  God's  heritage,  but 
the  servants  of  God's  people.  There  is  no  need  that 
bishops  should  be  unsympathetic. 

Of  course  bishops  do  make  mistakes,  and  they  are 
often  unsympathetic,  but  one  result  of  official  responsi- 
bility is  that  they  are  much  more  sympathetic  than 
the  popular  opinion.  We  grumble  at  officials  because 
they  do  not  lead,  and  because  they  dislike  and  dis- 
courage anything  that  is  new.  But  they  do  not  dislike 
it  half  so  much  as  we  do,  so  we  grumble  at  them  a 
great  deal  more  because  they  will  not  *  stamp  it  out  ' 
as  energetically  as  we  want  them  to. 

Lastly,  therefore,  the  inconsistency  of  our  complaints 
shows  how  little  we  really  mean  by  them.  If  anyone 
will  consider,  to  make  anything  of  a  new  idea  or  plan 
absorbs  the  labour  of  a  life-time.  If  the  bishop  is  to 
undertake  that  labour,  what  is  to  become  of  all  the 
other  new  ideas  and  plans  ?  Plainly,  no  one  man  can 
lead  them  all  at  once.  And  what  is  to  become  of  all 
the  plain  common  work  of  administration  ?  A  clever 
bishop  with  theories  of  his  own  is  rather  a  nuisance. 
All  our  complaints  really  come  to  this.    We  want 


192    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


authority  to  make  everybody  fall  in  with  the  ideas  we 
like,  and  to  drop  those  we  don't  like.  Whereas  the  true 
business  of  authority  is  to  keep  us  together,  to  make  the 
very  able  wait  for  the  slow,  and  to  try  to  keep  the  slow 
from  going  to  sleep.  Of  course  we  object  equally  to 
being  kept  back  or  pushed  on,  but  I  think  we  know 
such  operations  are  necessary. 

(2)  What  I  have  said  about  bishops  applies  in  many 
ways  to  the  clergy  generally.  We  can  see  the  immense 
difference  in  the  idea  of  the  official  and  the  free  minis- 
tries, if  we  consider  the  significance  of  our  systems  in 
regard  to  irremovabihty.  The  Non-Conformists  take 
great  pains  to  ensure  that  the  men  they  choose  for  their 
ministry  shall  be  really  capable  men.  If  a  man  proves 
incapable,  it  is  always  possible,  and  generally  it  is  not 
very  difficult,  to  get  rid  of  him.  In  the  Church  we  take 
amazingly  little  trouble  to  ensure  capacity.  And  when 
a  man  has  once  been  ordained,  we  think  it  absolutely 
wrong  that  he  should  take  any  other  work  except  what 
can  be  counted  as  truly  '  clerical.'  Once  a  priest,  he 
must  always  follow  the  life  of  a  priest.  If  he  receives  a 
strictly  ecclesiastical  charge, — bishop  or  rector, — it  is 
practically  impossible  to  get  rid  of  him  without  his  own 
consent,  except  for  grave  fault. 

To  most  Non-Conformists  I  suppose  this  will  look  like 
an  inexplicable  stupidity  on  our  part.  I  do  not  say 
that  there  are  no  stupidities.  We  on  our  side  would 
confess  a  great  many,  but  I  am  sure  if  our  critics  will 
consider  the  matter  they  will  see  that  a  stupidity  so 
uniform  and  continuous  is  inexpHcable  only  because 
they  have  not  got  the  key.  Non-Conformists  are  think- 
ing of  spiritual  development,  which  does  require  able 
leadership.  We  are  thinking  of  something  quite  differ- 
ent.   The  ordained  priest  is  not  ordained  as  the  able 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  193 


leader,  but  as  a  man  who  has  received  a  certain  power, 
and  that  being  once  received  he  must  spend  his  Hfe 
under  a  responsibiHty,  in  regard  to  which  personal 
abilities  and  efficiencies  have  no  place. 

The  administration  of  the  sacraments  is  not  all  we 
look  for  in  our  clergy.  But  then  the  normal  official  ad- 
ministration of  parish  work  and  the  official  preaching — 
for  I  am  taking  preaching  as  the  type — being  concerned 
rather  with  the  fundamental  ground-work  of  Christian- 
ity than  with  the  developments  of  life,  are  relatively 
simple  things.  The  first  business  of  the  parish  clergy- 
man is  to  feed  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
made  him  overseer,  and  it  is  mostly  a  very  common- 
place flock  with  commonplace  needs.  Yet  the  priest 
is  handling  tremendous  mysteries,  and  they  are  the 
flock  Jesus  Christ  bought  with  His  own  blood.  The 
very  beauty  and  vision  of  Christianity  is  the  glory 
hovering  so  simply  over  what  is  so  commonplace. 

No  doubt  there  are  many  situations  and  opportunities 
which  call  for  high  ability,  but  for  my  own  part  I 
shrink  from  the  aspiration,  which  possesses  some  of  us, 
that  the  clergy  should  be  all  men  of  an  ideal.  I  forget 
the  census,  but  there  are  perhaps  20,000  clergy  in 
England.  If  the  Church  turned  up  ideals  on  this  scale, 
we  average  folk  would  hardly  find  room  to  breathe. 
I  think  there  are  few  thoughtful  Christians  who  will 
deny  that  we  are  all  at  the  present  day  a  world  too  fond 
of  hankering  after  big  men — which  is  perhaps  one 
reason  why  we  don't  get  them — and  we  have  not  half 
enough  faith  in  the  bigness  of  God's  grace.  We  Angli- 
can parsons  are  a  ve"  ^  average  lot,  but  it  is  for  the 
average  flock  that  we  have  to  take  thought.  Some 
may  say  we  are  a  very  poor  average.  I  daresay.  I 
was  a  parish  priest  myself  once  and  I  know  I  was  a 

N 


194    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


poor  average,  so  I  had  better  not  deny  it  and  I  shall  not 
resent  it.    We  do  our  best. 

I  began  by  saying  that  to  show  there  was  a  real 
place  for  an  official  system  would  also  be  to  show  that 
it  was  a  limited  place.  I  have  just  said  that  we 
*  Church  '  folk  all  readily  admitted  defects  and  stupid- 
ities in  our  system.  Unfortunately  we  cannot  agree 
which  are  the  defects  and  what  they  come  from.  I  can 
therefore  only  give  my  own  view  for  what  it  is  worth. 
To  my  mind,  then,  our  defects  arise  from  our  not  under- 
standing our  own  system,  and  consequently  not  recog- 
nising its  limitations.  We  have  an  official  system, 
concerned  with  the  fundamentals,  and  we  use  it  as  such. 
It  needs  to  be  supplemented  by  a  free  unofficial  system, 
concerned  with  expansion,  and  this  we  have  not  got. 
We  try  therefore  to  make  the  official  system  do  work 
for  which  it  is  not  fitted,  thereby  greatly  hampering  its 
proper  work,  as  well  as  confusing  our  own  minds.  I 
can  make  this  clear  by  following  up  two  applications 
to  which  I  have  already  referred. 

(i)  Taking  preaching  as  the  type  of  activity,  I  in- 
sisted that  we  could  not  reasonably  distinguish  between 
public  and  private  speaking.  Everybody  ought  to 
'  preach.*  I  learnt  to  see  the  importance  of  this  as  I 
considered  how  the  *  freedom  '  of  everyone  to  speak 
lay  at  the  root  of  that  Non-Conformist  idea  which  is 
common  to  all  bodies. 

I  was  the  more  ready  to  learn,  for  I  had  just  learnt 
the  same  lesson  from  the  missionaries.  The  English 
missionary  goes  to  India,  China,  Africa,  as  a  foreigner. 
He  takes  with  him  English  Christianity.  The  funda- 
mentals are  the  same,  but  the  development  and  mean- 
ing put  upon  them  are  different.  The  missionaries  are 
a  caste.    They  have  an  important  work  to  do  by 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  195 


ensuring  that  the  Indian  or  Chinese  Church  shall  not 
drift  away  from  the  fundamental  basis.  They  are  the 
critics  of  its  growth.  But  after  the  first  beginning  has 
been  made,  the  work  of  expansion  lies  with  the  Church 
itself.  We  do  not  want  the  heathen  without  to  become 
English  Christians,  but  Indian  Christians,  Chinese  or 
African  Christians,  as  the  case  may  be.  Therefore  I 
contend  that  the  true  work  of  evangelisation,  the 
making  of  converts,  should  be  carried  on  by  the 
Christians  living  there,  and  not  by  the  missionaries. 
Only  an  Indian  can  really  preach  Indian  Christianity 
to  Indians,  only  a  Chinaman  to  the  Chinese,  only  an 
African  to  the  Africans.  The  Christians  will  under- 
stand even  an  English  missionary,  for  Christianity  is  a 
bond  between  them,  but  the  English  missionary  preach- 
ing to  heathens  is  not  in  his  right  place. 

England  is  not  a  heathen  country,  and  the  difficulties 
are  not  quite  the  same  ;  yet  the  same  general  principle 
holds.  Ministers  of  any  denomination  are  a  people 
apart.  The  religion  of  a  man  to  whom  religion  is  the 
main  business  of  life,  and  the  religion  of  a  man  who 
uses  it  to  consecrate  other  business  are  bound  to  be 
different.  Our  own  people  feel  the  difference,  though, 
since  there  is  a  common  bond  between  us,  they  know 
how  to  get  from  '  the  parson  '  the  help  they  want.  To 
the  unconverted  the  parson  is  a  puzzle  and  often  an 
absurdity.  We  want  to  make  them  lay  Christians,  and 
lay  Christianity  can  only  be  rightly  presented  to  them 
by  lay  men.  The  priest  is  the  priest,  and  the  minister 
is  the  minister,  of  God's  Church.  The  lay  Christian  is 
the  priest  of  God's  universe,  and  it  is  mainly  his  business 
to  preach  to  them  that  are  without. 

(2)  In  speaking  of  '  expansion  '  so  far,  I  am  referring 
to  an  expansion  outwards.    There  is  also  an  internal 


196    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


expansion  in  the  development  of  Christianity  itself,  but 
all  development  is  a  matter  of  degree.  Whether  a  man 
is  trying  to  lead  a  Christian  life  is  a  relatively  simple 
question.  Certainly  if  a  man  is  a  Christian  at  all  there 
must  be  some  growth  and  some  progress,  but  the  capa- 
city for  growth  or  for  one  kind  of  growth  rather  than 
another  is  temperamental  and  therefore  varies  enor- 
mously. 

I  am  trying  just  now  to  work  out  the  relation  of 
these  different  principles  in  a  purely  scientific  way 
without  regard  to  any  conclusions  which  may  be  drawn 
from  them.  I  ask  my  readers  earnestly  to  consider 
them  first  from  this  point  of  view,  and  not  to  be  in  a 
hurry  to  reject  them  because  the  conclusions  may  be 
unpleasant.  We  shall  come  to  them  in  the  next  chapter. 
Yet  I  am  not  studying  merely  abstract  principles.  I 
am  comparing  them  with  our  experience,  or  rather  I 
am  trying  to  find  the  principles  which  underlie  our 
experience.  In  our  practical  systems  we  are  instinc- 
tively following  certain  principles.  Our  practice  gets 
into  confusion  and  develops  defects,  because  we  have 
no  clear  idea  what  its  principles  are,  consequently, 
either  we  do  not  follow  them  out  consistently,  or  we  try 
to  apply  them  where  they  do  not  apply.  Thus,  I  urge 
as  a  scientific  principle  that  Indian  Christianity  should 
be  presented  to  Indians  by  Indians,  and  lay  Christianity 
should  be  presented  to  lay-men  by  lay-men.  I  urge  on 
scientific  grounds,  that  there  is,  all  the  same,  a  real 
sphere  to  be  filled  by  the  English  missionary  in  the  one 
case,  and  the  parson  in  the  other. 

Coming  now  to  the  question  of  spiritual  development, 
I  urge  that  if  we  are  to  get  the  best  results,  that  develop- 
ment certainly  needs  helping,  certainly  needs  a  ministry. 
It  is  an  essentially  personal  development,  therefore  it 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  197 


does  not  belong  to  the  essentially  official  sphere. 
Plainly,  also,  it  is  not  the  kind  of  thing  which,  like  the 
primary  work  of  '  preaching  Christianity,'  belongs  to 
every  Christian.  It  is  addressed  specially  to  those 
specially  capable  of  it.  It  requires,  therefore,  special 
capacity,  and  it  requires  trained  capacity. 

I  think  then  we  can  mark  off  three  distinct  spheres 
of  Christian  activity,  all  of  which  should  be  represented 
in  the  Church,  and  are  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  its 
proper  life,  (a)  It  is  not  the  business  of  any  one  class 
more  than  another,  it  is  the  business  of  every  Christian, 
to  preach  Christ  daily  and  always  by  deed  and  word 
wheresoever  opportunity  occurs.  In  this,  a  professional 
ministry  of  any  kind  will  be  necessarily  less  effective 
than  unprofessional  people. 

(b)  The  development  of  the  Christian  life  requires 
the  preaching,  guidance  and  inspiration  of  men  having 
a  special  capacity  for  it.  Since  this  implies  special 
knowledge  and  training,  it  will  imply  a  professional 
class.  As,  however,  the  possibility  of  development,  the 
need  and  kind  of  guidance  required,  vary  so  much,  the 
system  must  be  '  free  '  or  voluntary,  even  although  it 
may  be  organised. 

(c)  The  more  intense,  enthusiastic,  whole-hearted, 
this  varied  activity  may  be,  the  more  necessary  it  is 
that  it  should  be  kept  true  to  the  Christian  ground- 
work from  which  it  proceeds.  The  maintenance  of  the 
Christian  '  form,'  which  constitutes  that  ground- work, 
belongs  to  the  official  ministry,  whose  first  business  is  to 
present  it  in  the  formal  sacraments  Christ  has  provided. 

Our  *  Episcopalian '  Church  provides  an  official 
ministry.  It  certainly  is  not  true  that  she  discourages 
her  people  from  '  preaching  Christ.'  Our  clergy  con- 
stantly press  this  duty  upon  all.    Here  once  more  I 


198    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


want  to  point  out  the  working  of  a  double-edged  argu- 
ment. In  the  first  part  of  the  book  I  pointed  out  that 
the  Protestant  system,  having  got  rid  of  the  positive 
sacramental  Presence,  had  laid  itself  open  to  emotion- 
ahsm,  for  emotion  or  feeling  was  the  only  witness  of  a 
Presence  left.  Protestant  Evangelicals  have  frequently 
denied  to  me  that  their  system  was  emotional,  and  have 
pointed  to  the  constant  warnings  against  emotionalism 
issued  by  their  leaders.  My  reply  was — warning  or 
none,  experience  shows  that  this  is  its  danger.  The 
warning  shows  that  the  danger  is  plainly  not  an  acci- 
dent due  to  false  leadership.  It  is  an  inherent  defect 
in  the  system.  I  must  in  all  honest  consistency  apply 
the  same  argument  here.  Our  clergy  do  urge  on  people 
the  importance  of  bearing  their  own  witness.  But 
experience  shows  that  our  people  do  it  very  little — less 
I  should  think  than  any  body  of  Christians.  Therefore, 
it  is  the  system  itself  which  is  at  fault.  The  whole  idea 
of  a  free,  spontaneous  activity  on  the  part  of  the  body 
has,  not  of  course  altogether  but  to  a  deplorable 
extent,  passed  from  us.  All  action  has  to  be  planned, 
pushed,  and  very  often  carried  through  by  the  officials. 

The  attempt  to  make  the  official  system  cover  the 
whole  ground  has  landed  us  all  in  utter  confusion. 
The  official,  clerical,  system  has  abundant  opening  and 
use  for  personal  ability  of  all  kinds,  but,  for  the  reasons 
I  have  given,  we  recognise  quite  well  that  it  would  be 
false  to  our  principle  to  make  personal  ability  the 
dominant  factor.  We  cannot  bring  ourselves  to  employ 
the  methods  which  the  Non-Conformists  employ  to 
measure  that  ability.  '  Preaching  on  approbation,'  for 
instance,  which  to  them  seems  natural  and  obvious, 
anyhow  inevitable,  is  to  us  intensely  repellent.  Yet, 
the  work  thrown  upon  the  clergy  is  such  that  it  has 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  199 


almost  ceased  to  be  an  official  system  at  all.  The 
success  of  a  parish  depends  on  the  personal  ability, 
energy,  attractiveness  of  its  clergy. 

In  the  same  way,  while  we  are  most  anxious  to  get 
more  spontaneous  activity  out  of  our  people,  whenever 
it  does  show  itself,  we  are  all  nervous  over  it  unless  it 
will  work  along  the  official  parochial  lines  and  under 
official  direction.  I  cannot  well  justify  myself  without 
giving  instances,  and  I  cannot  give  instances  without 
involving  myself  in  particular  controversies.  Yet,  if 
I  must,  I  will  refer  shortly  to  three  without  discussing 
them  at  any  length,  (a)  The  Church  of  England  Men's 
Society  is  our  nearest  approximation  in  England  to  a 
spontaneous  unofficial  activity.  How  far  it  will  be 
able  to  develop  its  power  remains  to  be  seen,  {b)  The 
feebleness  of  our  Church  efforts  in  the  missionary  field 
seems  plainly  due  to  our  over-absorption  in  official 
parochialism,  (c)  The  most  genuinely  Church  form  of 
an  organised  '  free  '  activity  has  always  been  in  the 
direction  of  Community  Life  in  one  shape  or  another. 
Our  Church  has  never  shaken  off  her  suspicion  of  its 
devotion,  nor  found,  even  under  the  most  favourable 
circumstances,  the  energy  and  enthusiasm  necessary 
to  make  it  a  real  factor  in  her  life. 

The  results  are  too  obvious  to  be  denied  ;  and  no  one 
does  deny  them.  Our  system  provides  and  safeguards 
what  is  necessary  to  Christianity.  To  any  new  call  our 
people — speaking  only  too  generally — offer  an  un- 
interested '  Is  it  necessary  ?  '  Devotion,  love  which  is 
self-sacrifice,  the  joy  of  giving,  the  enthusiasm  which 
does  great  things,  are  all  very  necessary  indeed,  but 
anybody  who  asks  for  them  under  that  name  knows 
neither  what  they  are  nor  where  they  live.  For  the 
whole  most  of  us,  I  am  afraid  it  is  only  too  true  that 


200    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


we  have  lost  the  habit,  lost  the  power,  lost  even  the 
ideal  of  doing  more  than  the  minimum  required,  and 
that  on  due  cause  shown.  It  is  easier  to  leave  every- 
thing to  be  done  by  the  clergy.  The  clergy  regret 
but  accept  it,  and  at  heart  they  rather  prefer  to  do 
things  themselves  and  in  their  own  way.  Does  not 
that  result  seem  to  justify  the  Non-Conformist  com- 
plaint that  official  control  stifles  spontaneous  energy  ? 

The  confusion  reaches  its  height  in  our  training  of  the 
ministry,  and  I  think  I  can  show  here  that  our  deficien- 
cies are  due  to  confusion  of  mind  and  not  to  mere 
stupidity.  The  essential  business  of  our  official  ministry 
is  to  maintain  the  essential  Christian  basis.  It  is  not, 
of  course,  sufficient  that  the  priest  should  know  which 
are  correct  and  orthodox  phrases,  and  which  are  in- 
correct and  heretical.  People  who  have  heretical 
theories,  though  they  may  argue  with  a  parson,  are  not 
likely  to  listen  to  him.  But  any  one  of  us  or  any  one 
of  his  own  people  may  be  taking  up  ideas  which  tend  to 
heresy  or  work  out  to  heresy.  The  priest  does  need  to 
know  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  Christian  basis,  what 
are  the  relations  of  its  parts  to  one  another  and  to  life, 
why  the  correct  is  correct,  why  it  is  important,  how  it 
can  be  applied  to  life  and  thought.  There  is  ample 
room  here  for  ability ;  a  clear,  level-headed,  intelli- 
gent grasp  of  Christian  meaning  is  sufficient,  but  that 
is  indispensable. 

The  practical  necessity  of  the  parish  system  as  it  is 
being  worked,  however,  has  taken  such  hold  of  our 
minds  that  we  can  hardly  think  of  anything  for  our 
clergy  except  of  securing  that  '  wide  general  culture,' 
which  is  really  needed  for  what  I  called  the  '  ministry 
of  development.'  We  do  take  some,  just  the  minimum 
of,  pains  to  ensure  that  our  clergy  shall  know  the 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  201 


correct  form  of  Church  teaching,  but  we  take  no  pains 
at  all  to  ensure  that  they  have  really  thought  out  its 
meaning.  The  narrowness,  only  too  common  in  our 
official  preaching,  is  just  the  narrowness  of  men  who 
do  not  know  enough  to  trust  themselves  off  set 
phrases. 

Our  real  difficulty,  therefore,  has  been  and  is  that  we 
realise  the  principles  of  our  official  system  far  too  clearly 
to  allow  us  to  follow  the  methods  which  belong  to  a 
different  set  of  ideals  or  aims,  but  we  do  not  realise  our 
principles  well  enough  to  follow  what  does  belong  to 
them.  And  for  that  difficulty  there  is  just  one  cause. 
We  have  not  got  a  Church  system,  but  half  a  Church 
system,  and  we  are  therefore  driven  to  force  that  half 
into  attempting  two  incompatible  functions — maintain- 
ing the  single  Christian  ground-work  which  is  common 
to  everyone,  and  also  pressing  on  that  development  of 
the  Christian  life  which  is  of  necessity  so  varied,  and 
which  moreover  since  it  must  be  a  spontaneous  growth 
cannot  be  '  pressed  on.' 

I  am  not  blaming  our  clergy  nor  our  leaders.  I  am 
not  suggesting  that,  as  things  stand,  they  ought  to  be 
doing  or  could  be  doing  anything  else  ;  I  am  rather 
urging  that  what  is  lacking  is  not  a  thing  which  the 
clergy  can  supply.  The  origin  of  our  position  I  have 
already  explained.  At  the  Reformation  the  other, 
voluntary,  side  of  the  Church  system  was  swept  away. 
When  a  new  voluntary  system  grew  up,  it  grew  up,  not 
as  complementary,  but  in  opposition.  The  example  of 
Non-Conformity  has  been  some  help  to  the  Church,  but 
its  division  from  us  has  also  made  it  a  terrible  hindrance, 
first  by  drawing  off  just  those  whose  enthusiasm  was 
wanted,  and  partly  because  the  sense  of  opposition 
inevitably  stiffens  the  opposed  principle. 


202    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


I  want  my  method  to  be  quite  clear.  I  deny  that  I 
have  on  my  own  account  brought  one  single  charge 
against  the  Anglican  system.  The  charges  are  in  every- 
body's mouth.  We  may  say  some  of  them  are  exagger- 
ated, and  I  have  said  so.  But  we  all  confess  them,  and 
I  confess  them.  '  The  AngHcans  have  all  the  starch.' 
I  never  said  that.  We  deny,  I  deny,  that  there  is  no  fire 
in  us  ;  but  we  admit  and  I  admit  that  our  system  is  very 
stiff  and  inelastic.  I  have  only  tried  to  show  that  the 
faults  are  not  faults  of  the  individuals,  but  that  there 
is  a  common  reason  underlying  them  all.  Stiffness  is  a 
necessity  in  anything,  but  the  same  system  cannot 
provide  both  the  stiffening  and  the  elasticity. 

If  my  thesis  is  correct, — that  the  two  sides  of  basis 
and  development,  the  two  systems  official  and  volun- 
tary, are  necessary  to  one  another, — having  shown  how 
deficient  the  official  is  without  the  voluntary  I  ought 
to  be  able  to  show  parallel  defects  in  the  voluntary 
system  apart  from  the  official.  This,  however,  I  can- 
not do  adequately.  I  have  been  a  '  Protestant,'  and 
I  can  speak  of  the  difficulties  of  Protestantism  with 
some  confidence,  but  I  have  never  been  a  Non-Con- 
formist, and  I  only  know  its  practical  result  and  working 
from  outside.  But  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should 
speak  adequately.  If  Non-Conformists  are  not  willing 
to  give  my  argument  sympathetic  and  serious  con- 
sideration, I  shall  only  excite  useless  ill-feeling  by  trying 
to  justify  myself  by  accusations  which  they  will  not 
admit.  If  they  are  willing  to  meet  me,  I  can — in  the  end 
I  must — leave  it  to  them  to  judge  how  far  the  real  diffi- 
culties in  their  system  correspond  to  the  causes  I  have 
assigned. 

I  think,  however,  I  can  suggest  three  difficulties 
in  the  Non-Conformist  system  which  are  generally 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  203 


acknowledged,  and  which  have  some  special  interest 
from  the  light  they  throw  on  the  principles  of  the 
system  itself. 

The  first  is  the  lack  of  independence  in  the  ministry. 
It  is  the  essence  of  Christianity  that  it  rests  on  a  basis, 
not  of  human  thought  and  action,  but  of  something  God- 
given.  If  there  should  be  a  ministry  primarily  con- 
cerned with  the  maintenance  and  presentment  of  that 
common  basis,  it  would  be  quite  natural  that  it  should 
be  a  ministry  which — even  if  it  were  appointed  by  the 
Christian  people — does  not  receive  its  power  from  them. 
The  development  of  Christian  life  and  thought,  however, 
would  be  a  human  development  and  varied.  For 
reasons  I  have  explained  elsewhere,  I  still  call  it  human, 
even  though  it  may  be  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It 
is  natural,  therefore,  that  the  ministry  of  that  develop- 
ment should  be  appointed  and  controlled  by  the  group 
or  body  of  Christians  ministered  to.  A  minister  out  of 
sympathy  with  those  special  developments  which  appeal 
to  his  people  will  not  be  able  to  help  them.  This 
difference  between  the  two  ministerial  systems  is  that 
which  we  find,  and  it  is  thus  explicable. 

Is  the  position  of  the  Non-Conformist  ministry  right  ? 
I  do  not  think  anyone  will  deny  that  it  is  full  of  danger. 
Except  where  the  minister  is  a  man  of  such  acknow- 
ledged power  that  he  can  stand  above  criticism,  the 
control  which  ensures  that  he  shall  give  what  his  people 
need  often  becomes  a  power  which  ensures  he  shall  say 
only  what  they  like.  Now,  of  course,  whether  it  be  of 
wealthy  patrons,  or  of  an  influential  group,  or  of  a 
majority,  or  of  general  feeling,  power  will  always  make 
itself  felt.  Our  own  ministry  is  not  free  from  its 
influence,  but  at  least  the  Church  system  not  only  rests 
upon  the  ideal  that  the  minister  may  and  must  speak 


204    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


truth,  popular  or  unpopular,  but,  if  it  cannot  secure  for 
him  the  courage  to  speak,  at  least  it  does  secure  for  him 
the  necessary  independence  of  position.  The  Non- 
Conformist  system  does  not.  A  number  of  ministers 
have  called  their  position  an  intolerable  servitude. 

I  believe  the  majority  of  Non-Conformists  would 
reply  that  they  did  not  deny  that  there  are  defects  or 
disadvantages  in  this  direction,  but  that  the  servitude 
of  the  minister  to  the  people  was  a  less  evil  than  the 
servitude  of  the  people  to  the  minister,  which  occurs 
under  our  system.  Exactly !  Each  system  secures 
something  ;  each  has  its  disadvantages.  Those  dis- 
advantages have  grown  into  very  serious  evils.  We 
cannot  even  start  combating  those  evils  effectively, 
because  that  would  be  giving  points  to  the  other  side. 
In  a  real  unity  the  weaknesses  of  one  system  are 
redeemed  by  the  strength  of  the  other  ;  in  disunion,  the 
weakness  of  each  protects  itself,  and  grows  by  the  weak- 
ness of  the  other.  I  believe  that  the  popular  control  of 
the  Non-Conformist  ministry  is  the  natural,  inevitable, 
right  and  consistent  result  of  a  sound  principle.  It  is 
only  a  serious  evil,  and  I  believe  it  is  a  serious  evil, 
because  it  stands  by  itself.  I  make  exactly  the  same 
admission  of  the  principle  of  our  ministry. 

(2)  The  second  defect  of  Non-Conformity,  I  should 
say,  was  its  emotionalism.  It  appears,  of  course,  in 
very  different  degrees  in  different  bodies.  The  Presby- 
terians hardly  show  it  at  all  in  the  form  commonly  so 
described. 

But  this  point  raises  a  very  curiously  significant 
question.  All  the  most  thoughtful  Evangehcals  are 
fully  alive  to  the  danger  of  emotionalism,  so  much  so 
indeed  that  in  controversial  moments  they  will  even 
deny  that  it  exists  as  a  danger. 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  205 


Evidently  '  emotionalism  '  has  a  very  bad  name. 
Many  prefer  to  speak  of  *  feeling,'  though  for  my  own 
part  I  cannot  see  the  difference.  Neither  can  I  see  why 
emotionalism  should  be  thought  badly  of.  Something 
is  done,  or  something  happens.  It  excites  us  to  a  three 
fold  response,  of  thought,  action,  feeling.  To  act  with- 
out thinking  is  foolish,  and  the  instinct  of  mere  activity 
is  so  far  a  danger.  But  to  think  without  doing  anything 
is  feeble,  and  mere  thought  is  also  a  danger.  The  same 
is  true  of  mere  emotion  or  feeling,  but  it  is  not  more  true 
than  of  the  others. 

The  real  danger  of  the  Non-Conformist  system  is  that 
of  substituting  the  human  activity  for  the  divine  gift, 
the  response  for  the  thing  which  is  responded  to.  It 
may  not  always  take  the  form  of  emotion,  though 
emotion  is  for  divers  psychological  reasons  much  the 
easiest  as  it  is  also  the  pleasantest  to  come  by.  I  do 
not  want  to  say  much  on  this  subject  here,  because  I 
have  said  so  much  elsewhere. 

(3)  My  third  suggestion  lies  in  a  doctrinal  direction, 
and  of  this  also  I  will  not  say  much,  because  I  want  to 
give  it  some  consideration  presently.  I  said  that  the 
first  business  of  official  teaching  was  to  be  correct  or 
orthodox,  and  I  was  fully  conscious  that  I  should  raise  a 
smile,  and  in  many  cases  a  smile  of  contempt.  But 
why  ? 

If  I  wanted  to  find  an  absolutely  conclusive  argument 
and  instance  of  the  mischief  being  done  to  our  whole 
life  through  these  miserable  divisions  and  the  essentially 
*  party '  mind  which  they  create  and  maintain  in  us, 
I  could  not  do  better  than  offer  these  two  words — 
emotion  and  orthodox.  Emotion  is  one  of  the  most 
glorious  things  in  the  world,  one  of  the  best  of  God's 
gifts.    Then  somebody  must  go  and  oppose  it  to  what  he 


206    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


calls  '  the  cold  and  hard  logic  of  reason.'  Then,  of 
course,  the  logically  minded  people  take  their  revenge 
by  talking  of  '  the  emptiness  of  emotionahsm.'  Surely 
the  truth  of  life  is  quite  plain.  Emotion  suggests  to  us 
the  significance  of  a  question.  The  cold  hard  logic  of 
reason  is  only  another  term  for  cool  dispassionate  judg- 
ment concerning  the  significance.  When  the  judgment 
has  been  made,  the  emotion  of  enthusiasm  is  necessary 
for  whole-hearted  and  resolute  action.  Reason  is  just 
the  one  thing  which  justifies  us  in  letting  emotion  have 
full  play.  The  only  result  of  our  empty  quarrel  is  that 
we  are  all  afraid  of  emotion,  look  the  other  way,  call  it 
*  feeling,'  as  if  emotion  was  something  to  be  ashamed 
of  !  And  we  are  no  less  afraid  to  think  steadily  for  fear 
we  should  be  '  logical,'  which  is  not  our  most  besetting 
sin. 

This  is  equally  true  of  orthodoxy,  for  I  do  not  suppose 
that  anyone  likely  to  listen  to  me  would  seriously 
contend  that  there  was  no  place  for  orthodoxy.  Never- 
theless, most  of  us  would  be  as  much  ashamed  at  being 
thought  orthodox,  old-fashioned  or  traditional,  as  at 
being  thought  emotional.  Once  more,  why  ?  Is  the 
superstitious  idolatry  of  mere  orthodoxy  one  whit  more 
unreasonable  than  the  superstitious  idolatry  of  the 
modern  and  the  novel  ?  '  We  want  progress  and  evolu- 
tion.' I  do  not  think  any  the  worse  of  that  inspiring 
statement  because  there  is  a  fine  old  Victorian  ring  about 
it.  Yet  we  are  in  a  hurry  to  clear  away  the  past,  ner- 
vously patronising,  anxious  to  prove  that  we  have 
nothing  really  to  learn,  for  we  are  bent  on  having  an 
entirely  new  thing  of  our  own.  '  The  Zeit-geist  breathes 
upon  it  and  it  is  gone.'  We  need  not  wait  for  the  next 
generation.  Our  new  thing  is  all  forgotten  in  a  few 
years,  because  there  is  another  thing  still  newer,    *  They 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  207 


that  take  the  sword  shall  perish  with  the  sword.'  A 
perpetual  succession  of  fresh  starts  is  neither  progress 
nor  evolution.  A  great  deal  of  our  very  newest  Chris- 
tianity bears  a  suspicious  resemblance  to  our  very 
oldest  pre-Christian  heathenism. 

'  Christianity  has  a  message  to  modern  thought,  to 
the  new  age.'  That  is  far  nearer  the  truth.  Let  us 
only  be  sure  that  the  message  is  Christian,  for  a  Chris- 
tianity reconstituted  by  the  new  age  has  for  the  age  no 
message  and  no  gospel.  It  can  bring  to  it  only  what  it 
took  from  it. 

What  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  Non-Conformist 
ministry  ?  I  think  it  has  a  great  deal.  *  The  dominant 
factor  of  Non-Conformity  is  the  body,  of  which  the 
ministry  is  only  the  expression.  Why  should  it  be 
contended  that  the  ministry  alone  should  maintain 
the  conservative  element  of  Christian  faith  ? '  It  can 
be  contended  that  it  is  for  the  body — ^ministers  and 
people  together — to  maintain  the  unity  of  Christian 
faith. 

I  have  tried  to  show  that  there  is  a  certain  Christian 
truth  or  message  which  is  fixed  and  in  Christ  God-given  ; 
there  is  also  an  expansion  or  growth,  by  the  Spirit  God 
inspired.  It  had  not  occurred  to  me,  I  learnt  from  the 
Non-Conformists  to  realise,  that  this  growth  could  not 
be  amorphous — merely  in  the  body  as  a  whole.  It 
wanted  its  own  organisation,  its  own  professionalism, 
its  own  ministry.  If  this  is  true,  then  it  is  equally  true 
that  some  form  or  organisation  is  necessary  to  keep 
before  the  Church  what  is  fixed  and  given.  But  the 
ministry  which  acts  as  the  expression  of  the  body 
cannot  be  simply  identified  with  the  ministry  which  is 
concerned  with  the  presentation  of  what  is  given  to 
the  body. 


2o8    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


It  may  of  course  be  pointed  out  that  the  existence 
of  a  *  fixed  '  ministry  has  not  defended  us  from  having 
the  same  hankering  after  what  shall  be  purely  modern. 
Nothing  but  the  eternal  Spirit  of  God  will  ever  deliver 
men  from  temptation,  but  the  forms  the  Spirit  has 
provided  may  be  a  great  help  in  combating  it.  I  think 
experience  shows  that  relatively  speaking  we  are  less 
troubled  in  this  direction.  Indeed  I  thought  myself 
justified  in  assuming  that  our  temptation  lay  in  the 
opposite  direction. 

I  maintain,  therefore,  that  there  are  two  sides  of 
Church  life,  just  as  there  are  two  sides  of  the  life  of 
every  one  of  us.  They  appeal  to  different  types  of 
mind  in  different  ways  and  degrees,  but  they  cannot 
rightly  be  treated  as  merely  alternative  or  merely 
temperamental,  for  just  this  reason,  that  all  individual 
powers  are  given  for  common  use.  Turned  to  personal 
indulgence  and  self-choice  they  are  but  a  swift  means 
of  ruin.  Let  a  man  have  the  character  of  a  saint  and 
the  insight  of  a  seraph,  yet  that  man  shall  perish  etern- 
ally and  cannot  be  saved  unless  he  is  content  to  enter 
the  Kingdom  of  heaven  on  that  common  Christian 
ground  where  the  child  and  the  ignorant  and  the  fool 
may  stand  with  him  side  by  side. 

Nevertheless,  every  man,  for  what  he  is,  must  have 
his  proper  development  and  must  be  provided  with 
the  means  of  that  development.  I  have  not  tried 
merely  to  accumulate  disputed  facts,  but  I  have  tried 
to  show  by  analysis  of  common  forms,  of  the  criticisms 
we  bring  one  against  another,  and  of  the  arguments  we 
allege  for  our  own  position,  that  all  our  difficulties 
spring  from  an  attempt  to  make  one  side  do  duty  for 
both,  and  that  any  religious  condition  which  does  so 
involves  itself  in  heresies,  schisms,  confusions  without 


THE  TWO  PRINCIPLES  OF  MINISTRY  209 


end,  evil  sheltering  itself  behind  the  opposite  evil, 
unreason  defending  itself  because  it  is  not  more  un- 
reasonable than  the  opposite  unreason.  '  Wilt  Thou 
not  turn  again  and  quicken  us,  O  Lord,  that  Thy  people 
may  rejoice  in  Thee  ?  ' 


o 


CHAPTER  XL 

IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 

Let  me  summarise  my  idea  of  the  position  before  us, 
once  more  beginning  from  an  analogy.  As  a  nation 
we  all  recognise  we  must  have  an  official  class  concerned 
with  that  which  is  fundamental,  necessary  to  the  main- 
tenance of  a  national  fabric.  We  must  all  pay  taxes 
and  keep  the  law,  therefore  we  must  have  tax  collectors 
and  police.  There  may  be  other  things,  such  as  posts 
and  perhaps  railways,  which  are  so  necessary  to  us  that 
we  had  better  make  them  into  public  services.  Inside 
the  shelter  of  this  fabric,  however,  we  are  carrying  on  a 
life  of  expansion  and  development  and  movement,  which 
must  be  free.  It  may  be  an  organised  development, 
and  its  organisations  will  produce  other  professional 
classes,  but  they  will  not  be  official  in  the  same  sense, 
since  they  will  be  concerned  with  voluntary  and  not 
with  necessary  activities,  with  things  which  are  or  may 
be  worth  doing,  but  which  are  either  not  necessary  or 
not  necessary  in  one  particular  way. 

Of  course  the  conclusion  to  which  I  am  tending  will 
be  quite  evident.  The  Church,  if  she  is  to  reach  the 
fulness  of  her  life  must  have — and  when  she  has  reached 
it  she  will  have — both  an  official  sacramental  ministry 
and  a  *  free '  ministry,  organised  and  unorganised, 
such  as  that  which  Non-Conformity  supphes  to-day 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE?  211 


and  the  Friars  supplied  of  old.  I  only  state  that  as  a 
principle,  but  I  mean  to  imply  what  I  seem  to  imply — 
a  mutual  recognition,  for  the  true  way  to  reach  that 
fulness  of  life  is  by  the  re-union  of  those  who  have 
possessed  themselves  of  the  two  severed  factors.  After 
three  centuries  of  dominant  officialism,  for  the  Anglican 
Church  to  develop  an  effective  free  system  would  be  an 
enormously  slow  business.  I  do  not  say  that  it  would 
be  impossible.  To  God  anything  is  possible,  and  if  our 
brothers  refused  to  join  us  I  believe  in  the  end  it  would 
be  done,  but  to  try  to  provide  for  ourselves  what  God 
has  already  given  to  others  does  not  seem  to  be  the 
right  way. 

This  suggestion  of  mine  will,  I  expect,  meet  with  a 
rather  diverse  reception.  There  is  a  crowd  of  onlookers 
who  will  eagerly  accept  the  apparently  simple  con- 
clusion to  a  troublesome  question.  Mutual  recognition 
— is  not  that  what  they  have  always  urged  upon  us  ? 
And  really,  after  all,  the  difficulty  has  always  been  on 
the  Church  side.  Now  that  we  have  this  startling 
admission  from  one  who  speaks  as  a  Catholic,  they  hope 
it  will  be  listened  to. 

After  what  I  have  said  above,  it  should  not  be  neces- 
sary for  me  to  say  anything  in  reply  to  this  view,  yet 
even  earnest  people  often  find  it  hard  to  get  their  minds 
clear  as  to  the  meaning  of  accepted  phrases.  I  must, 
therefore,  point  out  that  though  it  talks  of  '  mutual 
recognition,'  this  easy  popular  view  does  not  mean 
recognition  at  all.  Is  that  what  either  of  us  want  ? 
Are  we  both  to  be  tolerant  ?  Very  well,  but  do  either 
of  us  want  to  be  tolerated  ?  We  want  love,  unity, 
help.  Is  it  the  same  thing  if  in  disunion  and  disaccord 
we  are  both  bound  over  to  keep  the  peace  ? 

Are  we  not  concerned  with  spiritual  reality  and 


212    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


therefore  with  spiritual  truth  ?  If  so,  we  cannot  discuss 
the  question  as  if  it  could  be  settled  by  a  give-and-take 
arrangement.  We  are  not  commercial  men  making  a 
bargain,  nor  politicians  framing  a  policy.  Each  of 
these  no  doubt  must  be  ready  to  forego  much  he  would 
like,  and  to  accept  things  he  does  not  like,  as  the  reason- 
able price  of  the  advantages  which  others  will  give 
him.  It  is,  however,  impossible  for  us  to  approach  one 
another  by  saying  :  '  We  will  agree  to  treat  that  as  true 
— though  we  don't  think  it  is, — if  you  will  agree  to  treat 
this  as  true — though  we  know  you  don't  believe  it  ?  ' 
Frankly,  our  old  antagonism  and  strife,  ruinous  as  it 
was  and  is,  seems  to  me  far  better  than  the  peace  of 
acquiescence.  We  quarrelled  because  we  were  sure 
that  our  division  was  not  right,  and  we  wanted  to  make 
an  end  of  it  somehow.  A  quarrel  over  difference  is 
regrettable,  but  at  least  hopeful ;  an  amiable  indiffer- 
ence to  difference  is  ruinous  because  hopeless. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  dread  so  much  those 
premature  efforts,  not  so  much  to  close  as  to  hide  our 
differences  by  occasional  services  of  *  inter-Communion  * 
or  *  interchange  of  pulpits.'  I  do  not  believe  Non- 
Conformists  care  about  these  things  any  more  than 
we  do.  It  is  almost  an  insult  to  their  forefathers  as  to 
ours  to  believe  that  we  can  by  our  superior  wisdom 
simply  drop  all  for  which  they  beheved  themselves  to 
be  contending. 

There  are  real  differences,  full  of  real  lessons  and  real 
significances,  and  there  is  a  real  division  over  which  we 
cannot  too  deeply  grieve.  If  we  would  heal  that 
division,  we  must  carefully  face  and  study  the  differ- 
ences. To  ignore  them  is  not  only  to  perpetuate  the 
division  indefinitely,  it  is  to  repudiate  on  both  sides 
all  that  real  and  living  faith  with  which  the  difference 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 


213 


is  concerned.  We  are  declaring  that  the  mere  human 
feeUng  of  good-fellowship  constitutes  all  the  unity  we 
care  about.  To  anyone  who  realises  the  sacramental 
meaning,  kneeling  before  one  altar  in  the  full  sense  of 
its  meaning  is  not  a  way  of  reaching  unity,  but  its 
whole  attainment.  However  much  we  long  to  draw 
nearer,  where  that  meaning  is  not  accepted,  where  any- 
one feels  he  cannot  yet  accept  it,  I  am  sure  neither  of  us 
ought  to,  I  am  sure  none  of  us  would  wish  to,  degrade  the 
true  unity  of  faith  and  soul  into  a  similarity  of  physical 
postures. 

I  turn  therefore  to  the  genuinely  religious  question. 
In  urging  this  full  acceptance  by  both  sides  I  am  afraid 
I  shall  damage  my  reputation  for  consistency,  and  my 
reputation  for  seriousness  by  a  proposal  which  both 
sides,  though  for  opposite  reasons,  regard  as  utterly 
impossible.  I  will  try  first  to  consider  the  Episcopalian 
objections,  not  so  much  in  the  hope  of  answering  them, 
but  rather  because  they  will  give  me  an  opportunity  of 
considering  what  the  admission  of  free  preaching  would 
really  involve.  Then  we  will  consider  the  Non-Confor- 
mist objections  in  the  same  way.  Though  I  cannot 
prove,  and  it  is  not  my  place  to  say  whether,  unity  is 
possible  on  these  lines,  at  least  we  shall  get  some  idea 
of  what  is  implied  in  their  rejection. 

The  first  protest  then  comes  from  the  Episcopalian 
side.  Do  I  really  contemplate  the  Church  allowing  all 
and  sundry,  wise  and  foolish,  well-taught  and  ill- 
taught,  to  preach  as  much  as  they  like  and  anything 
they  like,  heresies  and  orthodoxies,  without  control  ? 
And  yet  that  is  what  my  notion  of  pure  freedom  comes 
to. 

I  do  not  want  this  question  to  get  more  tangled  than 
I  can  help,  therefore  let  me  note  that  I  did  not  begin 


214    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


by  making  any  proposal  at  all.  I  found  certain  con- 
victions which  I  held  very  strongly,  and  in  apparent 
opposition  other  convictions  which  were  somewhat  new 
to  me.  When  I  began  to  ask  what  there  was  in  human 
nature  or  in  the  nature  of  societies  to  explain  these 
different  convictions,  they  seemed  to  correspond  to  the 
difference  of  fact  and  appreciation,  sight  and  under- 
standing, law  and  freedom,  form  and  development.  In 
theology  they  seemed  to  correspond  to  the  work  of 
Christ  and  the  fulfilment  of  that  work  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  In  religion  we  found  them  again,  repeated  in 
the  distinctive  ideas  of  Sacraments  and  preaching. 

Certainly  these  differences  must  be  confusing,  since 
we  find  people  constantly  confused  about  them.  Those 
who  love  understanding  things,  philosophising  about 
them,  are  apt  to  be  impatient  and  careless  over  their 
facts ;  those  who  love  development  are  apt  to  forget 
that  there  must  be  something  to  develop.  Similarly, 
the  people  who  love  facts  are  apt  to  forget  that  they 
want  understanding  ;  those  who  love  law  are  apt  to 
forget  life.  Yet,  one  way  or  another,  we  know  that 
we  have  got  to  lay  our  count  with  both  sides.  I  am  not 
so  far,  therefore,  inventing  difficulties  in  this  question  ; 
I  am  merely  pointing  out  that  the  difficulties  which  do 
exist  are  of  a  certain  common  type.  Nor,  finally,  can 
I  be  held  responsible  for  the  possibihty  or  impossibihty 
of  a  reconciliation,  merely  because  I  insist  that  we  need 
in  religion  the  same  reconcihation  which  we  have  to 
make  elsewhere. 

Let  us  not  theorise  about  the  matter,  but  examine  it. 
Our  starting  point  is  not  a  proposal  that  everybody 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  preach  as  much  as  he  likes  (or 
can),  but  the  fact  that  at  the  present  day  everybody 
does,  whether  he  knows  what  he  is  talking  about  or  not. 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 


215 


The  workman  talks  to  his  mates  and  the  club-member 
talks  in  the  smoking-room.  Sometimes  they  both 
write  to  the  papers,  and  sometimes  the  sub-editor  of 
the  Daily  Rattletrap  writes  it  for  them,  and  they  only 
say  what  a  deep  and  original  thinker  he  is.  Can 
we  stop  it  ?  Do  we  want  to  ?  In  the  Middle  Ages  it 
could  be  stopped,  and  perhaps  it  may  not  have  been  all 
evil,  since  there  is  a  time  for  everything.  To-day  it 
cannot  be  stopped,  and  personally  I  have  no  doubt  at 
all  that  it  is  better  it  cannot.  If  people  read  their 
Bibles  or  anything  else,  and  think  or  even  imagine  they 
are  thinking,  many  of  them  will  think  amazing  foolish- 
ness, but  it  will  not  be  half  so  foolish  as  it  would  be  to 
try  and  stop  their  reading  their  Bibles  or  to  stop  their 
thinking.  If  people  think  foohshly,  the  true  remedy  is 
first  to  rejoice  that  at  least  they  are  trying  to  think, 
and  next — as  S.  Dominic  saw  long  ago,  would  he  had 
stuck  to  it  ! — to  set  to  work  to  help  them  to  think 
straight.  When  you  see  a  man  drowning,  all  right 
instinct  forbids  that  you  should  stop  to  inquire  as  to 
his  economic  value  to  the  community.  Life  has  possi- 
bilities, which  make  it  always  precious  even  when  it  is 
the  meanest,  and  intellectual  life  is  precious  for  the 
same  reason,  even  when  it  is  silly. 

Our  Lord's  teaching  lays  down  the  theological  prin- 
ciples, and  emphasises  no  less  the  practical  applications, 
on  which  this  view  of  our  duty  rests.  '  I  am  come  that 
they  might  have  life,'  and  this  life  is  in  the  gift  of  His 
Spirit.  Growth,  development,  spontaneous  activity, 
are  His  operation.  Again,  it  is  spoken  :  '  Ye  shall 
know  them  by  their  fruits.'  By  that  we  may  see  how 
much  is  not  the  work  of  God's  Spirit,  but  of  human 
levity  and  self-will.  Yes,  that  also  is  true.  'An 
enemy  went  and  sowed  tares.'    The  test  is  a  right  one, 


2i6    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


but  let  both  grow  together  till  the  harvest.  It  must 
needs  be  that  causes  of  stumbhng  come.  They  are 
part  of  the  discipline  of  life,  of  its  training  in  wariness 
and  seriousness. 

We  have  then  to  admit  that  these  activities  and 
'  preachings  '  of  one  sort  or  another  do  go  on  and  we 
have  to  allow  for  them,  but  the  Episcopalian  challenge 
really  means,  is  the  Church  to  give  them  her  recogni- 
tion ?  Here  I  think  we  are  getting  involved  in  another 
and  very  troublesome  ambiguity.  What  is  the  Church  ? 
I  pointed  out  that  the  community  must  undertake 
certain  duties  which  were  necessary  to  her  existence, 
but  that  she  left  our  private  undertakings  free.  The 
town  collects  its  own  rates,  and  it  runs  its  own  tram- 
lines, but  I  run  my  own  boiler  factory. 

Yet,  in  another  way  of  speaking,  my  factory  is  one 
of  the  industries  '  of  the  town.'  Certainly  the  town 
makes  it  possible,  maintains  streets  for  my  lorries, 
workmen  for  my  machines.  From  this  point  of  view 
also,  the  town  does  not  really  run  the  tram-line  nor 
even  collect  its  rates.  Both  are  done  for  it  by  official 
committees  or  departments  of  the  governing  body, 
over  whose  doings  so  much  of  the  community  as  is 
interested  may  or  may  not  be  able  to  exert  control.  It 
would  therefore  be  more  accurate  if,  instead  of  speak- 
ing of  community  activities  and  free  activities,  we 
spoke  of  the  free  activities  and  the  official  activities  of 
the  community. 

We  have  not,  therefore,  to  ask  whether  the  Church 
should  recognise  free  preaching,  but  whether  it  should 
be  recognised  officially.  There  seems  no  reason  why 
the  Church  should  recognise  it  in  this  sense.  I  do 
not  ask  the  town  council  to  give  *  recognition '  to 
my  boiler  factory,  but  I  might  if  there  was  some 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE?  217 


very  special  reason  for  it.  The  State  recognises  the 
railways,  and  used  to  recognise  the  telephone  com- 
panies, because  these  things  had  become  in  some  ways 
necessities. 

The  word  *  recognition  '  may  evidently  be  used  in 
many  senses.  I  have  pointed  out  already  that  the 
Church  must  and  ought  to  maintain  her  own  official 
preaching.  There  will  be  and  ought  to  be  a  great  deal 
of  free  preaching,  or  free  talking,  which  neither  asks 
nor  expects  recognition,  and  for  which  the  Church  is 
in  no  way  responsible.  Some  of  this  preaching  may 
organise  itself.  If  it  organises  a  false  teaching,  we 
Churchmen  should  regret  it,  but  so  far  as  organisation 
itself  goes,  we  are  always  regretting  that  the  Church 
shows  relatively  so  little  capacity  for  organised  spon- 
taneous development.  Even  when  developments  are 
organised  for  her,  she  cares  so  little  for  them — perhaps 
for  the  very  reason  that  having  been  made  for  her,  they 
are  not  spontaneous. 

How  far  could  we  take  such  bodies  as  the  Wesleyans 
or  Congregationalists  to  represent  a  genuine  Church 
development  ?  How  far  could  the  Church  '  recognise  ' 
them  ?    What  would  such  *  recognition  '  involve  ? 

Let  us  consider  these  questions  carefully.  We  are 
starting  from  our  own  assumption  that  there  is  a  founda- 
tion of  divine  sacramental  gift,  '  generally  '  necessary, 
that  is  normally  necessary  for  all,  and  that  the  adminis- 
tration of  this  gift  is  the  first  work  of  an  official  system, 
that  is,  of  those  to  whom  the  power  of  consecration  has 
been  duly  given.  We  are  next  assuming  that  there 
might  be  a  free  and  varied  outgrowth  from  that  foun- 
dation, which  had  developed  also  an  organisation. 
Obviously,  an  organisation  which  denied  that  there 
was  any  such  sacramental  gift,  and  which  did  not 


2i8    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


accept  that  gift  as  a  foundation,  could  not  ask  for 
recognition  from  the  system,  the  principles  of  which  it 
was  repudiating.  Nor  could  the  system  grant  such 
recognition.  It  would  be,  as  I  have  also  pointed  out, 
impossible  to  recognise  the  organisation  as  doing 
effectively  what  its  own  members  do  not  believe  ought 
to  be  or  can  be  done. 

Suppose,  however,  that  the  free  organisation  did 
accept  the  principles  of  the  official  sacramental  system, 
the  organisation  would  then  develop  its  own  life  out 
from  the  sacramental  system,  in  harmony  with  it  and 
not  apart  from  it,  whether  the  organisation  was  formally 
recognised  or  not.  If,  however,  it  were  recognised,  a 
great  deal  of  useful  co-operation  would  ensue.  Some 
of  the  ministers  of  the  organisation  might  be  ordained. 
If  so,  they  become  a  supplementary  part  of  the  official 
system,  both  in  its  sacramental  and  teaching  activity. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  might  be  better  they  should  not 
be  formally  recognised. 

Arrangements  of  this  kind  already  exist  to  some 
extent  in  the  Church.  An  institution  stands  in  a 
parish — a  large  boys'  home,  a  boarding  school,  barracks, 
in  some  cases  a  large  work  with  its  employees.  It  is 
too  large  and  too  speciahsed  to  be  dealt  with  by  the 
parish  clergy.  Those  responsible  provide  a  room  where 
prayers  can  be  said,  addresses  given,  and  they  take  a 
certain  spiritual  oversight  of  their  own  people.  If 
circumstances  call  for  it,  they  may  provide  a  chaplain 
and  a  chapel  for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments. 
Now  recourse  must  be  had  to  the  bishop.  Official 
license  must  be  obtained,  and  such  arrangements  as 
seem  necessary  must  be  made  to  avoid  clashing  with 
the  parish  Church. 

To  apply  this  method  to  the  Non- Conformist  bodies 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE?  219 


would  be  of  course  a  much  bigger  business.  The 
effects  would  be  much  more  serious.  Extra-parochial 
services — cathedral  services,  collegiate  services,  found- 
lings' hospital  services — are  rivals  to  the  parish,  and 
we  should  increase  the  rivalry  indefinitely.  Yet  there 
is  nothing  new.  So  far  as  the  principle  goes  we  have 
it  already.  So  far  as  the  question  of  scale  goes,  we 
have  not  a  friendly  rivalry  within  the  Church,  but  some- 
thing like  an  active  antagonism  from  without.  Have 
not  our  attempts  yet  proved  to  us  that  one  single 
official  system  cannot  be  made  to  satisfy  all  the  develop- 
ments of  the  Christian  life  ?  If  we  admit  that,  is  there 
any  reason  why  the  official  system  and  the  official 
preaching  should  not  continue  for  the  very  many  whom 
it  suits,  and  that  those  whom  it  does  not  suit  should  be 
otherwise  provided  for  ? 

*  Friction  ?  '  Of  course  there  would  be  friction.  One 
feels  inclined  to  say  that  the  double  system  would  hardly 
be  doing  its  work  if  there  were  none,  but  anyone  can  see 
in  any  sensibly  worked  town  parish  how  little  real  need 
there  is  for  it.  *  These  are  my  parish  boundaries  and 
my  parishioners,'  says  the  vicar.  These  are  the  people 
who  have  a  certain  canonical  right  to  his  services. 
There  is  a  large  mass  to  whom  he  must  personally 
devote  himself,  for  they  have  so  little  religious  sense 
that  if  he  does  not  there  is  no  one  else  to  reach  them. 
Amongst  the  more  religiously  minded,  he  knows  equally 
well  that  a  large  number  prefer  to  go  to  the  next  parish 
for  their  services  ;  some  from  the  next  parish  come  to 
his.  These  are  mostly  people  who  are  quite  capable  of 
taking  care  of  themselves,  and  we  clergy,  being  also 
reasonably  sensible,  let  them.  We  do  not  quarrel  with 
one  another  about  it.  Why  should  we  quarrel  with 
the  '  free  '  ministries  ?    We  do  quarrel  now,  because 


220    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


we  cannot  agree  about  the  place  and  value  of  different 
principles.  Once  we  have  realised  that  the  different 
principles  have  each  their  own  value  in  different  places, 
and  have  realised  what  those  places  are  and  how  the 
principles  are  related,  there  will  be  no  need  that  we 
should  quarrel. 

I  only  say  no  '  need,'  for  as  long  as  men  are  human, 
so  long  will  they  always  find  some  excuse  for  being  a 
little  jealous.  It  is  natural  to  resent  anybody  else 
having  a  try  at  what  we  think  we  can  do  quite  well. 
Yet  we  all  know  quite  well  that  there  is  never  just  one 
way  and  no  more  of  doing  things  and  looking  at  them. 
The  want  of  spontaneous  energy,  which  we  all  deplore 
among  our  people,  is  a  proof  that  our  official  system  is 
not  by  itself  enough  if  we  are  to  get  the  best  results. 
Is  not  our  dread  of  another  system  also  a  proof  that  a 
system  too  exclusively  official  has  led  a  little  too  much 
to  officialism  ?  The  parish  is  made  for  man,  and  not 
man  for  the  parish. 

There  are  many  things  spiritual  and  practical  which 
want  doing,  many  ways  of  doing  things  and  many  ways 
of  looking  at  them.  This  is  the  place  of  variety,  and 
it  is  disastrous  to  make  it  the  place  of  uniformity. 
There  is  one  thing  done  for  us,  one  thing  given  to  us, 
and  there  is  but  One  to  Whom  we  have  to  look  for  help 
and  strength.  There  is  the  ground  of  unity.  Once  we 
have  found  unity  I  believe  we  can  safely  trust  our  own 
and  other  folk's  common  sense,  as  we  do  in  our  parishes 
to-day.  The  difference  of  the  voluntary  system  will 
do  a  good  deal  to  deliver  us  from  the  stiffness  of  our 
officialism.  We  clergy  shall  always  be  officials  ;  we 
shall  always  have  an  official  way  of  looking  at  things, 
and  that  is  good.  But  we  want  to  get  out  of  our 
bondage  to  it,  for  that  is  evil. 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 


221 


So  far,  in  the  last  few  pages,  I  have  been  speaking 
mainly  to  Episcopalians,  and  I  have  tried  to  show  that 
there  is  no  real  reason  why  we  should  not,  and  that 
there  are  a  great  many  reasons  why  we  should,  admit 
the  right  of  free  preaching,  free  organisation,  free 
activities,  alongside  of  those  which  are  official.  It  is 
true  that  we  have  never  formally  excluded  such  things, 
we  have  indeed  professed  to  desire  them  and  to  welcome 
them.  I  am  afraid  we  must  confess  that  in  practice 
we  always  discourage  them.  We  only  welcome  them 
when  they  wdll  submit  to  the  dominance  of  the  official 
system  ;  that  is,  when  the  free  system  will  consent  to 
give  up  its  freedom.  I  do  not  suppose  that  I  shall  have 
persuaded  all  Episcopalians  of  the  necessity  of  another 
line  of  action.  We  have  grown  so  accustomed  to  that 
ideal  of  the  necessity  of  official  governance  that  it  is 
exceedingly  difficult  for  many  of  us  to  contemplate 
anything  else.  I  am  even  afraid  that  many  will  find 
it  difficult  to  be  patient  with  an  Episcopalian  who  pro- 
poses anything  else.  They  will  think  that  I  am  sur- 
rendering the  whole  Church  position  if  I  say — as  I  do 
say — that  to  my  mind  this  is  where  we  have  been  in 
error. 

Yet  so  far  I  am  speaking  to  my  friends — more  or 
less  about  a  position  I  understand.  I  also  maintained 
that  there  could  be  no  unity  and  no  recognition,  unless 
it  was  mutual.  The  Church,  as  a  sacramental  body, 
could  only  recognise  and  accept  the  principle  of  freedom 
so  maintained  and  practised  by  Non-Conformists,  where 
they  recognised  and  accepted  the  Church  principle  and 
practice,  that  is,  our  doctrine  and  system  of  Church 
sacraments.  Here,  where  I  have  so  much  less  claim  to 
understand,  I  am  afraid  I  shall  be  met  with  a  much 
more  emphatic  answer.    *  We  cannot  possibly  accept , 


222    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


your  sacramental  doctrine  and  system,  and  it  is  utterly 
useless  to  ask  it/ 

Perhaps  it  is,  but  at  least  let  us  be  sure  what  this 
answer  means,  and  what  is  involved  in  it.  What  exactly 
is  impossible  and  what  our  future  position  is  to  be. 
A  clear  understanding  will  be  a  great  gain,  even  if 
there  is  no  other  to  be  had. 

A  thing  may  be  impossible  in  three  ways,  (a)  It 
may  be  impossible  because  we  will  not  do  it.  We  might 
call  that  a  Conditional  ImpossibiHty.  It  is  only  im- 
possible so  long  as  our  minds  remain  in  this  state. 
Again,  {b)  a  thing  may  be  impossible  because  we  cannot 
do  it.  We  might  call  that  a  casual  or  Accidental 
Impossibihty.  When  we  get  wiser  or  stronger,  or  get 
a  few  more  helpers,  perhaps  we  may  succeed.  Lastly, 
(c)  a  thing  may  be  impossible  because  it  really  cannot 
be  done.  We  might  call  that  the  Fundamental  or 
Absolute  Impossibility.  It  is  not  always  quite  easy  to 
be  sure  to  which  class  any  given  difficulty  belongs,  and 
until  we  know  we  need  not  quite  give  up  hope. 

At  present  we  will  not  attempt  to  classify  this  im- 
possibility. Let  us  go  on  to  ask  what  is  involved  in  it. 
How  will  it  affect  the  question  of  unity  which  so  many  of 
us  on  both  sides  desire  so  earnestly  ?  How  would  Non- 
Conformists  wish  that  we  should  join  them  ?  Do  they 
want  us  to  surrender  our  convictions  ?  I  am  not 
without  hope  that  many  will  feel  with  me  that  surrender- 
ing convictions  is  a  dangerous  course  to  start  on,  and 
one  which  can  hardly  reasonably  be  asked.  Many  I 
know  are  quite  prepared  to  say  that  they  are  quite 
willing  we  should  follow  our  convictions,  only  that  they 
are  not  willing  we  should  force  our  convictions  on  them. 
What  they  ask  is  mutual  toleration  of  differences. 

This  seems  ever  so  simple,  yet  I  am  prepared  to  show 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 


223 


that  it  is  in  fact  an  Absolute  or  Fundamental  Impossi- 
bility. Let  us  consider.  A  thing  is  Absolutely  Im- 
possible which  is  so  entirely  inconsistent  with  itself 
that  it  could  not  exist,  and  that  nobody  could  seriously 
think  of  it.  If  a  man  thinks  of  a  triangle,  he  cannot 
think  of  it  as  having  four  sides,  for  if  it  had  four  sides  it 
would  not  be  a  triangle. 

Contradictions  of  this  kind  are  only  possible  when 
men  do  not  quite  realise  their  meaning.  The  old- 
fashioned  Non-Conformists  held  the  Catholic  view  of 
the  Sacrament  to  be  idolatry,  a  dishonouring  of  God, 
against  which  they  were  bound  to  protest.  That  was  in- 
telligible and  it  is  still  perhaps  a  very  common  attitude, 
but  the  proposal  I  am  now  considering  does  not  seem 
to  me  self-consistent.  If  it  be  true  that  God  gave 
Himself  in  the  way  we  believe,  then  the  Non-Confor- 
mists and  we  must  accept  that  truth  as  a  factor  in 
our  daily  religious  life  and  worship,  just  as  we  accept 
the  Incarnation  and  the  Atonement  in  our  Christian 
faith.  If  it  is  not  true,  then  Non-Conformists  ought 
not  to  tolerate  it.  We  must  ask  them  to  deliver  us 
from  vain  belief.  It  can  hardly  be  contended  that  a 
means  of  God's  actual  Presence,  which  in  fact  does  so 
profoundly  affect  our  lives,  is  of  no  importance.  Of 
course,  if  we  have  not  made  up  our  minds  which  way 
the  truth  lies,  toleration  is  perfectly  right  because 
hesitation  is  perfectly  reasonable,  but  hesitation  cannot 
be  the  basis  of  a  permanent  re-union. 

When  we  look  closely,  therefore,  it  does  not  seem 
to  me  that  the  proposal  for  mutual  toleration  has  any 
serious  meaning  just  in  the  shape  in  which  it  is  put. 
If,  however,  we  look  more  sympathetically  at  the 
causes  which  have  led  to  it,  we  may  see  some  very 
serious  meanings  indeed. 


224    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


A  long  and  sad  history  of  controversy,  a  growing 
consciousness  of  our  own  failures  and  needs  had  called 
up  in  many  of  us  a  doubt  whether  we  could,  whether 
God  meant  to  let  us,  win  that  decisive  triumph  over 
the  other  of  which  at  one  time  we  were  so  confident, 
and  for  which  some  still  hope.  With  an  increased 
humility  and  self-distrust,  and  with  the  increased 
knowledge  of  fuller  intercourse,  we  have  not  only 
learnt  to  feel  personal  admiration  and  respect,  we 
have  begun  to  see  that  there  was  good  also  in  the 
systems  which  were  different  to  our  own,  begun  to 
see  that  those  systems  were  strong  where  ours  were 
weak.  We  have  begun  to  recognise  that  we  had  a 
great  deal  to  learn. 

I  take  that  last  sentence  to  be  the  key  of  the  position. 
It  is  a  sentence  very  commonly  on  our  lips.  Some- 
times it  is  honestly  meant.  At  other  times  it  and 
similar  remarks  are  only  empty  platitudes,  the  formal 
compliments  of  religious  etiquette,  which  a  man  must 
use  who  wishes  to  be  thought  broad-minded,  but  which 
express  only  his  clear  perception  that  admiration  is 
cheap  and  politeness  easy,  though  he  has  no  intention 
of  doing  anything,  for  that  would  be  very  troublesome 
indeed.  Insincerity  is  just  the  sin  that  doth  so  easily 
beset  us.  It  is  morally  soothing  to  admit  that  we  are 
worthless  sinners,  and  it  is  intellectually  elevating  to 
admit  we  have  indeed  much  to  learn,  but  resentment 
in  the  one  case,  controversy  in  the  other,  are  as  open 
as  ever  the  moment  we  descend  from  the  general  to 
the  particular. 

The  foolishness,  the  mischievousness,  of  platitudes 
does  not  lie  in  themselves  but  in  us,  and  in  our  misuse 
of  them.  They  are  a  confession  and  a  reminder,  even 
if  we  make  them  an  excuse  for  forgetting,  what  we 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 


225 


ought  to  mean.  The  man  signs  himself  '  your  humble 
servant/  because  it  is  a  form,  and  it  is  a  form  because 
we  know  that  is  the  relation  in  which  we  should  stand 
to  one  another.  These  remarks  about  our  having  much 
to  learn  and  so  on  may  be  mere  platitudes  to  many,  but 
I  do  not  like  to  take  them  so.  I  had  much  rather 
believe  that  on  so  serious  a  question  they  were  seriously 
meant.  In  any  case,  they  imply  a  recognition  of  the 
way  up  which  unity  ought  to  come. 

Without  wishing  to  bind  anyone  to  my  view,  suppose 
we  admit  that  the  Churchman  excels  in  reverence  and 
the  Non-Conformist  in  energy.  Then  each  will  need  to 
learn  from  the  other  to  strengthen  himself  on  the 
weaker  side.  But  how  is  he  to  learn  ?  What  is  it  he 
has  to  learn  ?  Of  course  it  might  be  that  we  had  both 
failed  in  different  ways  to  appreciate  the  whole  Chris- 
tian ideal,  but  I  hardly  think  anybody  would  so  contend. 
Certainly  I  have  never  found  Churchmen  lacking  in 
their  admiration  for  energy,  nor  do  I  suppose  that  Non- 
Conformists  need  to  be  instructed  in  the  beauty  of 
reverence.  It  would  be  absurd  to  imagine  that  among 
so  many  millions  all  the  reverent  people  had  been  born 
on  one  side,  and  all  the  energetic  people  on  the  other, 
and  we  know  further  that  people  do  not  sort  themselves 
out  into  religious  bodies  according  to  character.  If 
then  the  difference  of  results  is  not  in  ideals  but  in 
attainments,  and  the  cause  is  neither  chance  nor  choice, 
but  up-bringing,  the  answer  to  our  question  is  plain. 
The  difference  lies  not  in  the  individuals,  but  in  the 
system.  Each  system  has  something  which  is  worth 
learning  whereby  it  has  made  the  common  ideal  effec- 
tive, and  each  has  something  it  needs  to  learn  and  to 
acquire,  for  therein  its  attainment  is  defective.  That  is 
the  only  meaning  we  can  put  upon  the  phrase. 


226    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


On  this  conviction  I  have  been  working  throughout. 
I  have  tried  to  find  what  was  the  vital  element  and  the 
true  strength  of  each  system,  what  was  the  nature,  and 
thence  to  infer  what  was  the  cause,  of  its  weakness. 
In  result  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  central  convictions 
of  both  sides  were  justified.  It  is  perhaps  over  twenty- 
five  years  ago  that  I  began  to  see  how  much  our  daily 
religious  life  needs  to  rest  upon  the  solid  foundation  of 
the  sacramental  gift,  the  objectivity  of  which  is  main- 
tained by  the  sacramental  order  of  its  administration. 
The  importance  of  the  Non-Conformist  side,  of  the 
organisation  of  a  voluntary  and  spontaneous  life,  I 
have  learnt  more  slowly  and  more  recently.  It  was 
only  possible  to  maintain  both  these  as  one  realised 
that  the  two  were  necessary  to  one  another.  The 
formal  and  sacramental  by  inadequate  development 
remains  formalist  and  ineffective.  The  free  life  apart 
from  the  sacramental  is  unstable,  emotional,  indi- 
viduahstic. 

If  then  where  an  opposition  exists,  I  yet  show  that 
both  are  right,  I  must  thereby  show  that  both  are 
wrong.  But  with  this  difference,  that  while  the  justifi- 
cation was  of  our  convictions,  the  condemnation — if  I 
must  call  it  one — was  of  our  negations.  The  Non- 
Conformist  was  wrong  in  protesting  against  sacra- 
mentalism,  and  the  Episcopalian  was  wrong  in  protest- 
ing against  voluntaryism.  We  both  knew  the  value  of 
what  we  held  and  of  what  God  had  given  us.  Neither 
of  us  was  sufficiently  conscious  of  what  he  lacked,  of 
what  God  was  willing  to  give.  I  have  only  gone  beyond 
the  platitude  that  '  both  are  right  and  both  are  wrong  ' 
by  trying  to  make  quite  explicit  to  myself,  and  if  I 
could  to  others,  what  was  right  and  why,  and  what  was 
wrong  and  why. 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 


I  am  not  of  course  pretending  that  I  have  done  my 
part  with  unfailing  accuracy.  There  may  be  more  than 
this  that  we  need  to  learn  from  the  Non-Conformists ; 
there  may  be  more  than  this  that  they  need  to  learn 
from  us.  I  think  for  my  own  part  that  these  are  at 
least  the  two  central  principles,  but  supposing  that 
when  we  have  thought  about  it  a  little  more  fully  we 
find  a  result  something  of  this  kind,  taking  my  state- 
ment for  want  of  a  better,  how  shall  we  face  it  ?  I 
fully  admit  that  it  would  be  very  difficult  for  Non- 
Conformists  to  accept  a  system  against  which  they  have 
always  protested  as  idolatrous,  just  as  it  would  be  very 
difficult  for  Episcopalians  to  accept  a  system  they  have 
always  protested  as  schismatical,  but  are  we  to  say  it 
would  be  impossible  ? 

If  so,  then  our  enquiry,  though  it  has  not  ended  as 
we  should  have  wished  in  bringing  re-union  any  nearer, 
will  at  least  have  done  some  service  ;  it  will  have  helped 
to  clear  away  some  needless  confusions.  We  get  rid 
of  the  idea,  and  of  the  misleading  phrase,  about  both 
having  a  great  deal  to  learn.  Unless  we  are  prepared 
to  confess  that  we  have  not  the  will  nor  the  capacity  to 
learn,  we  must  take  the  only  alternative.  There  may 
be  in  others  something  to  admire,  but  one  of  us,  except 
perhaps  in  details  of  system,  has  nothing,  the  other 
has  everything  to  learn.  Protestants  and  Catholics, 
Catholics  and  Protestants — one  is  wholly  right  and  the 
other  wholly  wrong.  We  must  again  betake  ourselves 
to  our  arguments  till  one  body  is  whoUy  converted  and 
disappears.  There  always  have  been  those  on  both 
sides  who  took  this  view,  which  is  now  justified. 

Obvious  as  the  conclusion  may  be,  and  in  some 
circles  popular,  it  yet  provides  no  answer  for  the 
scientific  question — ^how  is  it  that  both  systems  have 


228    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


gone  on  side  by  side,  both  developing  so  much  effective 
power,  for  so  long  a  time,  though  one  was  wholly  wrong  ? 
Is  human  perversity  a  sufficient  explanation  of  such  a 
phenomenon  ? 

The  scientific  question  we  might  perhaps  ignore.  It 
is  more  difficult  to  ignore  that  large  mass  of  simple 
people  who  are  pleading  with  us — '  If  one  body  is 
wholly  in  the  right,  and  yet  you,  who  are  so  deeply 
interested  and  often  so  highly  trained,  cannot  convince 
one  another,  who  are  we  to  decide  between  you  ?  ' 
Surely  there  must  be  some  better  answer  for  them  than 
that  somewhat  hopeless  prospect  of  our  old  differences. 

I  must  repeat  my  point.  Either  the  sacramental 
gift  is  a  fact,  and  the  necessary  basis  of  religious  life,  or 
it  is  not.  Either  some  free  development  is  necessary 
to  the  fulness  of  Christian  life  in  the  Church  or  it  is  not. 
In  this  shape  the  question  must  be  answered  one  way  or 
another.  If  we  cannot  agree,  we  must  differ,  for 
questions  about  necessity  cannot  be  waived  aside. 
That  each,  holding  fast  its  own  convictions,  should 
unlearn  its  repudiations — before  we  call  that  impossible 
— at  least  let  us  see  what  possibility  is  claimed  for  it, 
what  limitations  of  possibility  must  be  admitted. 

Is  this  proposal  *  practical  politics  ?  '  Certainly  not. 
It  is  not  a  matter  of  politics  at  all.  If  anyone  supposes 
that  we  might  bring  the  suggestion  forward  at  our 
congresses,  conferences,  synods,  with  a  view  to  an 
early  settlement,  so  that  perhaps  when  the  Lambeth 
Conference  meets  in  1918,  our  bishops  may  agree  to 
recognise  the  freedom  of  Non-Conformist  preaching, 
while  the  Non-Conformists  accept  our  sacramental 
doctrine,  of  course  such  an  idea  is  wholly  impossible, 
preposterous,  absurd — I  should  say  Fundamentally 
Impossible. 


IS  A  SYNTHESIS  POSSIBLE? 


229 


It  is  not  a  question  of  politics,  for  it  must  be  in  the 
first  place  a  question  of  temper,  that  is,  of  mental 
outlook.  Unity  of  the  kind  I  am  hoping  for  is 
impossible — with  a  Conditional  Impossibility — so  long 
as  we  are  thinking  of  something  we  may  have  to  give 
up.  Would  it  not  be  different  if  we  began  by  trying 
to  be  sure  what  we  had  to  give,  for,  starting  thence, 
should  we  not  be  led  to  think  also  of  what  we  had  to 
gain  or  to  learn  ? 

In  the  second  place  it  is  not  a  question  of  politics 
because  any  final  action  can  be  a  result  only  of 
convictions.  Politics  are  of  man,  concerned  with  the 
devices  of  his  making.  Convictions  are  of  God,  for 
the  vision  of  truth  is  the  gift  of  His  Spirit.  I  have 
reasoned  out  my  points  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  I 
have  tried  to  understand  and  express  what  God  seemed 
to  be  teaching  me,  but  whatever  my  hopes  may  be, 
I  hardly  expect  that  I  shall  persuade  anybody.  I  do 
not  offer  this  last  statement  as  a  becoming  tribute  to  a 
belated  modesty,  but  because  I  have  very  little  belief 
in  human  persuasion  at  all.  We  are  looking,  even  in 
our  quarrels  we  have  been  looking,  for  God's  way,  God's 
will,  God's  truth.  For  many  of  us  new  truths,  new 
ideas,  new  habits  have  become  very  difficult.  It  will 
take  us  the  long  patience,  not  of  years  but  perhaps  of 
life-times,  before  we  come  to  the  vision  of  a  fuller,  more 
perfect,  more  many-sided  Christianity,  fixed  in  those 
firm  roots  which  drink  of  the  living  waters,  diverse  in  its 
branches,  whose  leaves  will  be  for  the  healing  of  the 
nations. 

I  cannot  bear  to  admit  that  word  *  impossible  '  in 
any  final  sense,  for  that  is  to  doubt  God's  power.  Yet, 
to  contemplate  unity  as  something  immediately  attain- 
able is  very  like  an  assertion  of  man's  self-will.    '  It  is 


230    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


not  for  you  to  know  the  times  and  the  seasons  which  the 
Father  hath  put  in  His  own  power.'  We  have  begun  to 
see  that  there  really  are  deep  principles  on  both  sides 
waiting  to  be  reconciled.  We  have  hardly  begun  to  see 
what  they  are.  Greatly  daring,  perhaps  out  of  sheer 
vanity,  I  have  tried  to  define  and  set  them  out.  It  may 
well  be  of  this  generation  that  it  is  written :  *  Thou 
shalt  see  it  with  thine  eyes,  but  thou  shalt  not  enter 
therein,  because  ye  rebelled  against  my  word  at  the 
waters  of  Strife.'  Or,  as  it  is  written  upon  another 
occasion,  *  But  your  little  ones,  that  ye  said  should  be 
a  prey,  they  shall  go  in  and  possess  it.'  And  yet  again, 
it  may  be  for  us  that  God  has  kept  this  great  thing. 


PART  III. 
DOCTRINE. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

CREEDS  AND  FAITH. 

So  far  I  have  dealt  with  the  question  in  dispute  as 
being  primarily  concerned,  first  with  religious  observ- 
ance, and  then  with  ecclesiastical  system.  I  have 
assumed  that  the  old-fashioned  evangelical  faith  in 
the  Incarnation  and  in  the  Atoning  Death  of  Christ  was 
a  common  ground  between  us.  I  have  in  general  not 
done  more  than  ask  what  place  certain  forms  had,  and 
how  far  they  might  be  necessary  for  the  consistent 
presentation  and  maintenance  of  that  faith,  although 
incidentally  I  have  given  some  explanation  of  what  we 
took  to  be  its  force  and  meaning. 

I  made  the  assumption  because  it  would  be  con- 
fusing if  I  tried  to  argue  two  questions,  the  religious  and 
the  doctrinal,  at  the  same  time.  I  thought  I  was 
justified  in  making  the  assumption  because  that  evan- 
gelical faith  was  not  very  long  ago  regarded  as  the 
centre  and  core  of  Non-Conformist  teaching.  Even 
now  I  beheve  it  is  passionately  held  by  much  the 
larger  number,  and  that  very  few  would  definitely  or 
formally  repudiate  it.  I  believe  I  could  say  that  many, 
even  of  those  who  feel  it  to  be  slipping  away  from  them, 
would  gladly  get  back  to  it  if  they  could. 

I  am  well  aware,  however,  that  this  assumption 
cannot  permanently  be  maintained,  and  herein  we  may 


234    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


see  something  of  the  depth  and  sublety  of  the  questions 
which  divide  us,  the  difficulty  and  at  the  same  time  the 
importance  of  understanding  their  true  nature.  We 
have  discussed  the  rival  claims  of  our  ministries  and  of 
our  systems  for  a  very  long  time.  We  have  hardly 
recognised — I  personally  have  only  just  come  to  recog- 
nise— that  we  on  the  Church  side  were  contending  for  a 
ministry  and  system  which  was  primarily  and  distinc- 
tively intended  to  present  and  maintain  the  essential 
ground-work  of  the  Christian  faith,  while  the  Non- 
Conformists  were  contending  for  a  ministry  which 
should  build  up  and  express  the  Christian  activity  and 
development.  Each  of  us  was  so  wrapped  up  in  his 
own  point  of  view  that  he  could  only  judge  the  other 
from  it.  The  Churchman  regarded  the  Non-Conformist 
ministry  as  a  rival  sacramental  order.  The  Non-Con- 
formist could  not  understand  why  the  efficiency  of  his 
own  ministry  should  not  be  recognised. 

So  far  there  did  not  seem  to  be  finally  conclusive 
reason  why  the  two  systems  should  not  be  united,  and 
there  was  every  reason  why  they  should.  The  Church 
system  grievously  needs  spontaneity,  freedom,  develop- 
ment ;  the  Non-Conformist  system  seems  to  us  in 
imminent  peril  of  drifting  away  from  Christian  faith  to 
a  belief  in  personal  energy  and  feelings,  activities  and 
experiences.  If,  however,  the  time  for  so  simple  a 
solution  is  not  passed,  that  solution  is  becoming  more 
and  more  difficult  as  the  two  courses  lead  further  to 
their  logical  conclusions.  Formerly,  Non-Conformists 
could  not  see  that  the  fixed  ground-work  given  in 
Christian  doctrine  or  teaching  needed  a  religious  or 
sacramental  presentation  ;  but  by  many  of  the  younger 
generation  the  question  is  being  asked  whether  there  is 
a  fixed  ground-work  which  can  be  so  presented.  To 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


^35 


their  minds  the  so-called  ground-work  is  wholly  a  life. 
The  controversy  about  forms  perhaps  was  from  the 
beginning,  it  is  certainly  now  becoming  a  controversy 
as  to  the  nature  of  faith.  The  question  of  sacraments 
is  secondary  to  that  of  Creeds. 

I  think  this  view  of  things  is  correct,  and  yet  it  was 
hardly  possible  for  us  to  do  other  than  we  have  done. 
We  may  argue  over  Creeds  and  Articles  a  long  time 
without  ever  getting  within  range  of  one  another's 
meaning.  Beginning  from  religious  usages,  which  are 
after  all  the  truest  expression  of  religious  ideas,  the 
problem  of  the  sacramental  gift  brought  us  to  the  point 
almost  at  once.  Is  the  Divine  Presence,  is  God,  a 
Something  we  know  only  by  personal  experience,  only 
recognise  within  the  modes  of  our  being,  or  is  it  a 
Something  altogether  greater  than  ourselves,  which 
we  acknowledge,  not  first  in  feeling,  but  first  in 
worship  ? 

Certainly  the  strong  objection  which  most  Non- 
Conformists  feel  to  the  use  of  the  Creeds  are  to  us  very 
puzzling.  We  are  so  accustomed  to  accept  those 
Creeds  as  a  short  minimum  statement  of  the  essential 
points  of  Christian  belief  that  we  can  hardly  realise  the 
position  of  men,  apparently  holding  the  same  beliefs, 
who  yet  object  to  the  statements,  and  still  more  when 
we  find  that  on  being  pressed  they  are  objecting  to  the 
existence  of  such  statements.  We  cannot  help  feeling 
that  there  is  some  misunderstanding,  either  about  the 
meaning  of  the  Creeds,  or  about  the  use  we  want  to 
make  of  them.  With  every  motive  for  wishing  to 
understand,  I  am  still  far  from  sure  that  I  do  understand 
rightly.  After  much  perplexity  I  fancy  I  can  see  some- 
thing of  what  is  meant,  and  I  will  do  my  best,  as  before, 
if  only  for  the  sake  of  being  corrected. 


236    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


On  a  superficial  view  the  objection  to  Creeds  seems  to 
us  to  proceed  from  two  quite  different  motives,  held  by 
two  very  different  sets  of  people,  {a)  Some,  I  think 
most,  Non-Conformists  hold  the  same  belief  as  our- 
selves, as  fully  and  as  strongly  as  we  do,  but  they 
dislike  giving  it  a  formal  expression,  partly  because 
they  quite  rightly  regard  faith  as  a  matter  of  life  rather 
than  of  intellectual  assent.  In  consequence,  they  are 
inclined  to  be  critical  over  the  exact  expressions  pro- 
vided, critical  over  both  their  insufficiency  upon  the 
really  vital  or  living  issues  and  their  over-sufficiency 
on  the  intellectual  issues,  (b)  There  are,  however, 
others  who  seem  to  us  to  have  definitely  thrown  off  that 
ground-work  of  belief  which  the  Creeds  were  meant  to 
express. 

If  we  could  take  these  as  two  clearly  distinct  positions, 
and  if  we  could  mark  off  those  who  belonged  to  the  one 
or  to  the  other,  things  would  be  much  simpler.  For  my 
own  part  I  could  say  at  once  I  did  not  propose  to  write  a 
book  on  Christian  Apologetics,  I  had  only  to  consider 
the  real  place  of  a  statement  of  beliefs.  But  the  position 
is  not  simple.  The  puzzling  part  is  that  the  positions 
which  seem  to  us  so  different,  do  not  seem  very  different 
to  those  concerned.  When  we  looked  at  the  Non- 
Conformist  system  from  without,  we  found  one  body 
with  an  '  Episcopalian  '  system,  another  with  a  rigidly 
ordained  ministry,  and  we  might  imagine  both  were 
nearer  to  us  than  the  Quakers,  the  Salvation  Army, 
or  some  independent  chapel  which  has  no  regular 
ministry  and  no  sacraments.  Yet  we  find  in  fact  that 
all  seem  to  share  in  a  common  spirit — a  spirit  of  *  free- 
dom,' by  which  in  spite  of  what  is  more  obvious  they 
seem  drawn  rather  to  one  another  than  to  us.  So, 
even  those  who  avow  our  beliefs  most  strenuously 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


237 


seem  to  feel  themselves  more  in  sympathy  with 
those  who  disavow  them  than  with  us  who  formulate 
them.  Again,  we  find  those  who  definitely  deny 
our  behefs  are  after  all  relatively  few,  but  there  is 
a  very  large  and  growing  number,  who  altogether 
deny  that  the  beliefs  are  fundamental,  and  who  are 
attaching  less  and  less  importance  to  them.  The 
spirit  of  freedom  in  the  system  is  a  spirit  of  freedom 
also  in  belief. 

When  we  saw  how  deep-seated  were  our  differences, 
it  seemed  to  me  almost  foolish  to  imagine  that  we  could 
patch  up  real  union  merely  by  placing  separate  or- 
ganisations side  by  side.  We  ought  rather  to  begin 
by  asking  what  are  the  principles  concerned,  and  in 
what  relation  do  they  stand  to  one  another.  It  is 
the  principles  we  have  to  recognise  first.  We  are  still 
more  bound  to  that  method  now  that  we  find  the  same 
difference  recurring  in  regard  to  our  faith.  I  propose 
first  to  examine  what  we  mean  by  faith.  In  what 
sense  can  we  call  it  a  life  ?  In  what  way,  if  any,  is 
the  intellect  concerned  ?  Next,  we  may  ask  what  can 
be  meant  by  essential  beliefs,  whether  there  are  such 
things,  and  what  part  they  play  in  our  life.  How  far 
the  Creeds  meet  any  of  our  requirements  we  can  leave 
to  another  chapter. 

In  the  two  questions  I  propose  to  consider  here,  I 
used  two  different  words.  I  spoke  first  of  a  faith,  then 
of  a  belief.  The  distinction  between  them  is  of  great 
importance.  We  will  take  belief  first  because  it  is  the 
simpler,  and  in  examining  its  meaning  I  will  try  to 
keep  to  the  simplest  and  most  common-place  usages. 
If  we  have  a  difficult  term  to  deal  with,  it  is  always 
better  to  avoid  as  long  as  we  can  the  complexities  of 
its  religious  associations. 


238    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Belief  is  certainly  a  common  enough  word.  We  use 
'  I  believe  '  as  synonymous  with  *  I  think,'  or  '  I  have 
an  opinion  '  in  somewhat  marked  contrast  to  *  I  saw '  or 
*  I  know.'  In  general  the  first  set  of  terms  expresses 
a  doubt ;  the  second  set  implies  a  certainty.  This 
distinction,  however,  is  secondary  or  accidental ;  the 
root  difference  lies  in  the  process.  Knowledge  belongs 
to  sight  and  the  axiomatic — or  what  we  take  as  such — 
and  to  what  can  be  proved  from  these  by  a  deductive 
or  mathematical  reasoning.  Opinions  or  beliefs  are 
always  a  matter  of  inductive  reasoning  from  experience, 
and  uncertain  because  the  results  of  that  process  gener- 
ally are  somewhat  uncertain.  Thus  the  past  is  in 
principle  a  matter  of  knowledge,  for  we  assimie  some- 
body must  know  and  have  seen  what  happened.  In 
practice,  they  do  not  always  tell  us  truthfully  what 
they  saw  ;  therefore  in  practice  we  have  to  go  largely 
on  inference,  and  past  history  is  often  a  doubtful 
opinion.  The  future  is  always  an  inference,  and  there- 
fore always  of  opinion,  except  the  future  eclipses  of 
astronomy  which  are  known,  because  we  now  take  the 
principles  of  astronomy  as  axioms  and  can  calculate 
with  deductive  certainty. 

It  is  curious  and  not  unimportant  to  note  therefore 
that  belief  is  always  associated  in  our  mind  with  reason. 
If  I  say  that  '  I  believe  A.  B.  is  going  to  commit  bur- 
glary,' I  shall  be  immediately  asked  why.  I  may  find 
it  difficult  to  explain  why,  but  if  I  admitted  I  had  no 
reasons  I  should  be  set  down  as  a  lunatic.  Knowledge, 
on  the  other  hand,  does  not  necessarily  require  reasons, 
and  indeed  always  rests  finally  on  something  which 
cannot  be  reasoned.  If  I  say  I  know  two  and  two  are 
four,  no  one  calls  me  a  lunatic  because  I  can  only  repeat 
that  I  do  know  it. 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


239 


The  greatest  distinction  between  the  two  is  in  the 
object  of  the  verbs.  The  object  of  the  beHef  is  always 
a  statement  or  proposition.  I  beUeve  that  *  the  train 
will  go  to  London.'  The  object  of  knowledge  may  be 
a  statement,  for  I  might  say  I  knew  it  would.  More 
distinctively  the  object  is  a  thing  or  a  person.  I  know 
a  tree  or  I  know  Tom.  I  can  only  say  I  believe  Tom, 
when  I  mean  I  believe  that  he  is  telling  the  truth. 
Belief,  therefore,  is  entirely  intellectual.  The  pro- 
position or  statement  is  intellectual ;  my  belief  is  its 
acceptance  by  my  intellect,  for  reasons  which  my 
intellect  finds  sufficient.  This  holds  of  religions  as  well 
of  trains.  I  believe  there  is  a  God,  or  that  the  train  will 
start,  partly  because  I  have  been  told  so  by  credible 
persons,  whether  Popes,  or  Apostles,  or  my  friends,  or 
Bradshaw,  and  partly  for  a  multitude  of  other  reasons 
which  I  can  or  cannot  work  out.  It  is  a  very  difficult 
business  to  know  what  has  brought  one's  mind  to  a 
belief. 

When  we  come  to  faith,  or  trust,  or  belief  in, 
taking  these  as  synonymous,  we  have  a  much  more 
complex  idea.  In  the  first  place,  the  object  of  our  faith 
is  always  a  real  thing  or  person,  or  what  can  be  con- 
ceived as  such.  It  is  never  a  statement.  I  believe  that 
the  train  will  start,  but  I  can  only  say  that  I  beheve  in 
the  train.  In  the  second  place,  in  order  to  be  an  object 
of  faith,  this  thing  (i.e.  the  train,  in  which  I  include  all, 
the  driver,  the  rails  and  so  on,  as  one  complex  object) 
must  be  capable  of  producing  results  which  I  proceed 
to  attain  by  its  means. 

There  are  here  three  points  to  note,  (i)  Faith  goes 
beyond  beHef,  beyond  mere  intellectual  assent,  because 
it  is  looking  to  practical  results.  I  have  faith  in  the 
train,  because  I  am  letting  it  carry  me  to  my  destination. 


240    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


When  I  arrive  there,  I  still  believe  that  the  train  will 
go  on  to  the  terminus  and  will  also  return,  but  it 
would  be  straining  language  to  say  I  had  any  further 
faith  in  it.  Since  I  have  no  intention  of  going  on,  nor 
of  returning  by  it,  I  do  not  use  the  train. 

(2)  Faith  therefore  implies  an  activity  on  the  part  of 
its  object.  It  generally  also  involves  a  good  deal  of 
activity  on  my  part,  for  to  fulfil  my  faith  I  must  go  to 
catch  the  train.  It  may  lead  up  to  activity,  for  I  travel 
by  the  train  in  order  to  do  several  useful  things.  But 
faith  itself  is  not  so  much  an  activity  as  a  passivity.  It 
actually  consists  in  an  attitude  of  will  by  which  I  throw 
myself  upon  something  not  myself  that  it  may  do  some- 
thing for  me.  The  central  act  of  my  faith  lies  in  my 
sitting  still  and  allowing  myself  to  be  carried  instead  of 
walking. 

(3)  Although  belief  is  not  the  whole  of  faith,  it  is  an 
essential  element  in  it.  It  is  the  essential  element, 
basis  or  ground-work  which  makes  faith  possible.  The 
faith  by  which  I  allow  the  train  to  carry  me  somewhere 
rests  upon  my  belief  that  the  train  goes  there.  If  I  do 
not  take  the  trouble  to  see  that  my  belief  is  reasonable, 
I  may  find  myself  at  the  wrong  place.  Faith  is  by  no 
means  always  a  virtue. 

If  now  we  have  got  a  clear  meaning  for  our  word,  let 
us  ask  what  place  faith  has  in  our  life.  We  have  a 
vague,  and  yet  a  strong,  feehng  that  even  if  it  is  not 
always  a  virtue,  it  is  yet  a  very  glorious  thing.  We  will 
begin  with  faith  in  our  fellowmen.  Certainly  without 
faith  we  could  not  be  men  at  all,  or  even  animals.  We 
could  only  be  vegetables,  and  sterile  vegetables,  for 
propagation  involves  an  act  of  faith.  We  are  accus- 
tomed to  say  that  civihsation  makes  us  sceptical,  and 
this  is  very  true,  for  civilisation  is  a  development  of  the 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


241 


self-conscious  personal  life  which,  breaking  through  the 
chain  of  mere  routine  habit,  looks  at  everything  with 
the  conscious  judging  intelligence,  acts  accordingly  with 
the  free  and  conscious  choice  that  make  foresight.  This 
bringing  of  everything  to  judgment  is  what  we  mean  by 
scepticism. 

But  it  is  no  less  true  that  civilisation  is  essentially  a 
life  of  faith.  The  nearer  one  goes  to  savagery  the  more 
self-dependent  each  man  is.  The  huntsman  makes  his 
own  weapons,  catches  his  own  game,  dresses  his  own 
skins,  puts  up  his  own  shelter.  He  must  trust  his 
fellow- tribesman,  or  he  would  not  be  human,  but  there 
is  not  much  except  the  sacredness  of  the  family  to  wit- 
ness to  the  need  of  help.  Commerce  and  industrialism 
seem  to  us  full  of  suspicion  and  strife.  They  are  really 
a  vast  structure  built  upon,  and  made  possible  by,  faith 
and  mutual  help.  A  bank  is  a  temple  of  faith,  for  the 
banker  never  dreams  of  seeing  nor  wishes  to  touch  with 
his  fingers  a  hundredth  part  of  the  wealth  he  enters  with 
his  pen.  He  trusts  you  and  you  trust  him  ;  he  credits 
you  and  you  credit  him.  Taken  as  individuals,  we  are 
all  very  helpless,  but  because  we  trust  one  another  and 
help  one  another  we  can  do  almost  anything.  Faith  is 
the  result  of  our  weakness,  and  it  is  the  glory  of  our 
weakness  because  it  is  its  redemption. 

I  seem  to  have  been  singing  the  glories  of  modern 
civilisation,  and  I  do  not  think  we  ought  to  forget  its 
wonder  and  spirituality,  even  though  we  are  mainly 
conscious  of  other  sides  which  are  horrible  and  evil. 
How  can  the  same  fountain  bring  forth  sweet  water  and 
bitter,  as  it  palpably  seems  to  do  ?  The  power  and 
glory  of  civilisation  come  from  the  accord  between 
opposites  ;  the  evil  and  misery  come  from  their  dis- 
accord.   We  began  by  being  sceptical,  and  bringing  all 

Q 


242    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


things  to  judgment.  When  we  judged  ourselves,  we 
judged  our  insufficiency.  Thus,  when  we  had  learnt 
our  own  weakness,  in  our  need  of  help  we  found  power. 
Out  of  doubt  and  questioning  we  found  the  answer  in 
faith. 

But  in  this  process  there  are  two  fatal  flaws,  (i) 
Our  faith  is  the  great  underlying  fact  of  life,  its  perpetual 
assumption,  and  because  we  take  our  assumptions  for 
granted  we  do  not  think  much  about  them.  Our 
scepticisms,  our  judgings,  our  doubts,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  very  hard  work  and  take  up  all  our  attention.  Our 
life  is  built  out  of  weakness  and  helpfulness,  but  our 
consciousness  is  occupied  by  the  sense  of  power  and  the 
desire  for  success.  We  live  by  faith,  for  we  are  parts  of 
a  community,  yet  we  think  of  ourselves  as  individuals, 
and  even  the  good  we  would  do  for  another  must  be  a 
choice  of  the  self. 

Of  course,  reflexion  shows  us  this  is  all  wrong,  but  it 
shows  us  also  that  it  is  a  wrong  we  cannot  escape.  We 
belong  to  the  great  common  humanity,  but  what  is  the 
value  of  the  ignorance  of  our  judgment  as  to  its  good  ? 
When  we  were  young,  we  had  a  serene  confidence  in  our 
fitness  to  put  things  straight  and  to  say  how  they  ought 
to  go.  Our  earnestness  found  it  fine  fun  to  have  a 
try  at  putting  them  straight  and  filled  us  with  an  intense 
ambition  to  be  grown  up,  so  that  we  might  try  on  an 
adequate  scale.  As  we  get  older,  if  we  do  not  learn 
faith  in  God,  at  least  we  learn  unbelief  in  ourselves. 

The  world  of  youth  is  a  very  simple  place  with  a  clear- 
cut  right  and  wrong  no  one  can  ever  mistake.  The 
world  of  middle  age  is  a  horribly  complex  affair  in  which 
with  the  best  intentions  it  is  much  easier  to  do  mischief 
than  to  do  any  real  good.  Ideals  remain  as  a  dream, 
but  what  can  a  man  effect  ?    Of  what  avail  are  his 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


243 


judgments  and  efforts  ?  This  much,  that  if  we  stick 
pretty  close  to  our  own  business,  it  will  be  reasonably 
possible  to  keep  ourselves  afloat.  Is  not  this  what  the 
actual  order  of  things  has  designed  for  us  ?  What  do 
we  know  about  the  good  of  humanity  ?  Is  humanity 
anything  more  than  a  Jarge  number  of  individuals 
similarly  engaged  in  looking  after  their  own  selves  ? 
Somehow  the  actual  order  works  out  fairly  well,  for 
incidentally  also  we  help  one  another.  Why  should  we 
not  let  it  go  its  own  way,  putting  in  such  little  helpful- 
nesses as  come  within  our  reach  though  with  no  great 
idea  of  their  serviceableness  ? 

Is  not  this  the  epitome  of  human  life  ?  The  faith  by 
which  we  work  we  can  only  take  for  granted,  for  we 
cannot  make  it  continuously  possible.  As  mere  frag- 
ments of  a  whole  we  can  only  have  a  fragmentary  con- 
ception of  the  whole.  Real  as  our  faith  may  be  in  it — 
the  most  real  thing  about  us — we  cannot  realise  it  in  a 
fragmentary  consciousness  already  occupied  by  the 
activities  and  beliefs  of  the  self.  Humanity,  therefore, 
has  the  unreality  of  an  abstract  notion,  and  collective 
humanity  is  the  sum  of  all  weakness.  The  Superman 
of  Nietzsche  was  the  ideal  of  power,  and  every  attempt 
to  reaUse  the  type  has  shown  its  vileness  and  its  folly. 

The  true  and  permanent  redemption  of  human  weak- 
ness can  lie  only  in  faith  in  God,  since  the  principles 
which  to  us  are  separate  and  inconsistent  are  in  Him 
reconciled.  All  human  knowledge  is  derivative,  for 
it  is  the  knowledge  of  the  observer.  As  things  are,  so 
by  experience  and  reflection  we  may  learn  to  think  of 
them.  Knowledge  in  God  is  causative,  like  the  know- 
ledge of  a  designer.  So  things  are  as  He  thinks  them. 
We  therefore  and  the  things  we  know  stand  apart, 
and  the  gap  is  only  bridged  by  a  partial  knowledge  ; 


244    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


the  knowledge  of  God  is  complete,  holding  in  Himself, 
reconciling  and  perfecting,  the  imperfect  and  partial. 

Without  this  faith  in  God,  faith  in  man  is  impossible, 
and  faith  in  ourselves  is  a  mere  vain  boasting,  available 
at  best  for  purposes  of  self-seeking.  With  faith  in 
God  all  things  are  possible.  We  can  believe  in  men, 
for  if  humanity  means  little  for  us  but  an  abstraction, 
assuredly  it  means  a  great  deal  for  God.  We  may 
know  little  of  what  God  wants  for  man,  but  we  can 
have  patience  and  learn,  and  learning,  since  it  is  essen- 
tially of  humility,  is  essentially  of  faith.  Nor  need 
we  be  afraid  to  act,  even  if  it  involves  big  issues.  We 
have  only  our  judgments  and  our  own  theories  to  go 
upon,  and  these  may  be  wrong.  God  Who  has  made 
us  thus,  knows  our  weakness  and  our  self-will.  But 
if  we  have  done  our  best  to  learn,  and  to  keep  to 
what  we  have  been  given  to  see,  what  then  ?  Our 
confidence  and  our  rejoicing  are  not  in  ourselves,  but 
in  God.  Every  human  instinct  shrinks  from  failure, 
and  to  have  made  a  fool  of  yourself  is  the  greatest 
terror  in  life.  Yet  if  we  fear  failure,  we  shall  do  nothing. 
With  the  love  of  God,  though  the  shrinking  and  pain 
are  still  there,  there  is  something  very  beautiful  in 
failure,  something  one  would  not  have  missed  for  the 
world  in  learning  one's  own  weakness.  With  faith  in 
God,  one  knows  well  enough  that  failure  is  no  great 
matter. 

I  do  not  know  if  I  have  done  it  very  well,  or  made  my 
meaning  intelligible,  but  I  thought  it  worth  while  to 
try  to  show  that  for  all  human  life  there  is  one  true 
basis.  Life  can  grow  rightly  and  consistently  so  long 
as  a  man  is  prepared  to  start  everything  by  saying  '  I 
believe  in  God.'  Was  this  worth  explaining  ?  '  Surely 
in  writing  for  professedly  religious  people,  we  might 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


245 


take  that  for  granted.'  Alas,  this  is  just  where  our 
rehgion  has  followed  the  way  of  our  civilisation.  Pre- 
occupied with  our  activities  we  have  forgotten  all  about 
our  faith.  We  talk  fine  things  about  God,  as  we  do 
about  our  fellow-men  and  about  what  we  should  like 
to  do  for  them.  We  hardly  consider  what  they  do 
for  us,  and  it  is  amazing  how  little  comes  of  our  talk 
and  our  ideals. 

In  the  religious  world  to-day  we  are  all  full  of  devout 
feelings,  experiences,  enthusiasms,  noble  aspirations, 
constructive  ideals,  moral  energies,  character-buildings. 
Of  course  there  is  another  side,  but  we  do  not  want 
to  be  too  critical  about  it.  *  God  is  doing  His  best.' 
We  admit  that  it  is  a  very  poor  best,  but  '  God  has 
never  had  a  fair  chance  with  the  world.'  Evidently 
now  we  are  getting  to  work  in  earnest,  things  will  look 
up  a  bit.  If  this  is  not  believing  in  God,  anyhow  God 
will  have  good  reason  to  believe  in  us,  so  there  will 
be  faith  somewhere. 

As  it  is  with  the  means  of  our  religion  so  it  is  with  the 
end  or  aim  for  its  attainment.  '  The  concern  of  re- 
ligion is  to  regard  the  world  as  a  means  by  which  the 
highest  value  of  the  devout  man  is  realised.'  '  The 
kingdom  of  God  is  that  in  which  alone  man  finds  his 
blessedness.'  Or,  that  we  may  not  miss  the  point 
of  what  might  be  ambiguous,  *  Man  has  the  sense  of 
his  own  dignity,  and  makes  himself  the  centre  round 
which  the  world  closes  as  a  circle.' 

I  have  taken  these  illustrative  passages  somewhat 
hurriedly  from  different  sources.  Some  are  from  writers 
of  the  highest  religious  influence  ;  some  are  sayings 
picked  up  from  platform  addresses.  Their  authorship 
is  of  no  moment.  Let  the  reader  open  any  of  the  vast 
multitude  of  modern  books  on  the  subject,  and  he  will 


246    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


find  plenty  more  quotations.  Religion  is  a  feeling  of 
our  own,  or,  when  we  get  a  little  sceptical  of  feelings, 
then  it  is  the  activity  of  our  practical  devotion  to  moral 
and  social  problems.  The  end  of  religion  is  the  de- 
velopment of  the  aforesaid  feelings,  or  it  is  character- 
building,  or  again,  it  is  the  seeking  of  solutions  to  the 
moral  and  social  problems. 

I  do  not  hesitate  to  repeat  that  it  is  this  very  thing 
which  makes  our  religion  and  our  activities  alike  in- 
effective. *  We  make  ourselves  the  centre  of  a  world.' 
Yes,  that  is  just  what  we  do,  and  it  is  of  course  an 
utterly  unreal  world,  a  patent  fancy  world  of  our  own 
imagining.  It  so  happens  that  the  real  world  was 
made  a  longish  time  ago.  Some  of  us  believe  that 
it  was  made  by  God,  and  that  God,  and  not  man,  is 
its  centre. 

If  the  modem  world  could  accept  that  belief,  we 
should  find  a  basis  for  reverence,  and  reverence  is  the 
basis  for  patience,  humility,  careful  study.  But  why 
should  we  study,  learn,  enquire,  about  God's  world  and 
God's  way  when  we  can  make,  not  one  but  so  many, 
much  better  worlds  and  ways,  each  for  ourselves  accord- 
ing to  our  own  theories  of  what  a  world  ought  to  be  ? 
Meanwhile  the  practical  business  man  says  with  equal 
justice  that  he  has  to  deal  with  the  world  as  it  is,  and 
has  neither  interest  nor  use  for  fancy  worlds.  Both  of 
us  then  have  lost  the  reverent  fear  of  God's  judgment 
upon  what  the  practical  man  does  or  we  rehgious  folk 
think. 

'  We  take  the  thought  of  God  for  granted,'  and  we 
do  not  at  all  realise  that  it  is  the  most  difficult  of  all 
thoughts.  Even  now  when  the  doubt  is  meeting  us 
on  every  side,  being  hurled  at  us  by  the  van-load  from 
all  the  publishers,  we  hardly  realise  the  difficulty  of  the 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


247 


thought,  or  the  difficulty  of  making  it  real,  just  because 
it  is  so  easy  to  make  it  a  sentiment,  and  we  think  so 
little  of  the  real  world.  In  all  the  back  ages  of  history 
men  have  sought  for  God  as  a  refuge  from  the  world, 
because  He  was  its  maker  and  its  ruler,  and  they 
could  not  find  Him.  We  stand  where  they  stand,  and 
their  means  are  ours.  The  heavens  are  telling  the  glory 
of  God.  We  turn  to  them,  and  we  learn — Astronomy. 
Let  us  go  to  the  children,  peer  into  the  child-mind,  and 
we  return  with  our  hands  full  of  the  observations  of 
Experimental  Psychology. 

In  this  perplexity  the  scientist  comes  upon  us. 
'  What  do  you  expect  to  find  ?  Please  remember  that 
in  this  area  of  the  fact,  of  the  true  order  of  the  world, 
there  is  no  room  for  dreams,  fancies,  preferences.  If 
you  search  with  honest  patience,  you  can  learn  some- 
what of  just  how  things  are  and  of  the  order  in  which 
they  stand.  Whether  they  are  nice — according  to  your 
standard  of  what  is  nice — does  not  in  the  least  affect 
the  matter  or  alter  the  truth.'  Science  closes  the  reign 
of  heathen  religion,  that  is,  of  the  religion  of  human 
notion  and  aspiration.  The  best  philosophy  could  do 
was  to  assert  an  Ultimate  as  unknown  as  Kant's 
'  thing-in-itself.' 

Only  one  real  attempt  at  an  answer  has  been  made. 
Mohammedanism  at  least  laid  hold  on  the  primary 
truth  that  reality  is  not  what  we  reach,  but  what 
reaches  to  us.  It  presented  God  not  as  the  abstraction 
drawn  from  our  experience,  but  as  One  Who  had  at 
least  spoken  by  *  the  Prophet,'  who  had  sent  a  message. 
Apart  however  from  what  was  thus  given,  Moham- 
medanism leaves  the  whole  order  in  which  we  have  to 
live  just  what  it  was  before.  We  are  told  God  rules 
over  it,  but  as  He  stands  clear  away  from  it,  the  mere 


248    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


fact  of  rule  rather  adds  to  its  unintelligibility  than 
otherwise. 

Only  one  real  answer  has  been  given.  Christianity 
begins  from  the  same  point — God  reached  to  us,  but 
not  merely  by  a  message.  God  Himself  took  our 
nature,  accepted  our  limitations,  lived  our  life,  died 
as  we  must  die.  Let  us  take  three  of  the  main  diffi- 
culties of  life,  and  see  whether  and  in  what  way  this 
answer  meets  them. 

(1)  Will  it  enable  us  to  answer  the  scientist  ?  Can 
we  by  its  means  find  our  way  through  life  any  better  ? 
Will  it  help  us  to  know  what  we  ought  to  do  ?  Plainly 
no.  We  can  no  more  solve  the  problems  of  economics 
or  sociology  by  New  Testament  quotations  than  we 
can  solve  the  problems  of  geology  from  Gen.  i.  I 
maintain  that  the  scientist  is  broadly  right,  and  we 
can  only  learn  God's  will  bit  by  bit  in  a  proper  scientific 
way.  We  do  not  expect  to  know  the  Prime  Minister's 
policy  because  we  are  old  friends.  Indeed  a  man  de- 
serves to  lose  a  friendship  which  he  uses  as  a  claim  for 
official  confidence.  In  the  miracle  of  love  God  gave 
to  us,  not  the  knowledge  of  what  He  is  doing  or  going 
to  do,  but  the  Presence,  the  vision,  the  knowledge  of 
Himself. 

(2)  What  is  implied  in  this  will  be  better  understood 
when  we  consider  the  problem  of  evil,  which  some 
think  the  gravest  of  all  our  problems.  '  God  is  doing 
His  best ' — and  a  shocking  poor  best  it  is.  Is  this 
irreverent  ?  So  far  as  the  first  statement  goes,  I  am 
not  so  much  struck  by  its  irreverence  as  by  the  extra- 
ordinary conception  it  betrays  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Name  of  God.  The  second  statement,  however,  is  a 
perfectly  honest  statement  of  how  things  seem  to  us. 
God  has  accepted  it  and  answered  us.    The  evil  we  all 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


249 


feel  is  just  the  evil  of  our  weakness,  the  defect  of  our 
limitation.  We  have  so  much,  we  can  do  so  much, 
but  there  is  so  much  more  that  we  have  not  got  and 
cannot  do.  Thus  the  evil  is  intensified  into  wretched- 
ness ;  through  our  resentment  sorrow  becomes  misery 
and  desire  becomes  greed,  for  greed  is  nothing  more 
than  the  impatience  of  our  weakness.  Here  is  for 
life  a  whole  nest  of  contradictions.  God  meant  us  to  be 
weak,  for  the  evil  of  weakness  is  not  an  evil  at  all, 
but  a  beautiful  thing,  being  the  whole  basis  of  love.  We 
cannot  help  thinking  it  intolerable  and  trying  to  over- 
come it,  for  imperfection  is  the  soil  also  of  sin.  True, 
it  will  serve  for  either,  but  it  is  not  intolerable  since  God 
Himself  was  made  man  that  He  might  bear  it,  and  that 
He  might  bear  the  sin  also. 

(3)  To  my  mind,  the  problem  of  evil,  though  more 
pressing  is  less  central  than  the  problem  of  humanity. 
Man  as  an  individual  is  but  a  part,  a  fragment,  of  a 
whole.  His  good,  his  being,  his  powers,  come  from  the 
whole  and  are  designed  for  it.  Man,  unlike  the  animals, 
acts  for  a  conscious  end.  But  of  this  end  for  which  he 
should  act  he  knows  nothing.  His  conception  of  the 
whole  humanity  is  merely  an  abstraction  from  the 
individuals  he  knows  or  has  heard  of.  That  is  not 
the  worst.  The  despair  of  it  all  is  that  to  all  seeming 
there  neither  is  nor  can  be  a  real  whole,  a  real 
humanity,  to  live  for  or  to  know. 

Water  is  water  and  rock  is  rock  and  force  is  force — 
equivaiently  interchangeable — to  the  end  of  all  time. 
But  just  as  we  learn  more,  grow  older,  wiser,  just  as  we 
grow  more  fully  to  be  men,  so  we  grow  more  individual. 
For  this  growth  is  a  development  of  a  consciousness 
which  is  a  self -consciousness.  As  we  learn  to  think,  our 
ideas  are  different,  '  independent '  even  when  similar  ; 


250    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


as  we  grow  in  feeling  so  we  separate,  since  our  feeling  is 
more  essentially  our  own  than  our  thoughts.  Even  if 
we  seek  the  common  good,  we  have  first  of  all  separated 
ourselves  to  make  ourselves  the  judges  and  agents  of 
what  mankind  ought  to  like  and  have. 

Our  life  then  steadily  leads  us  away  from  what  is 
common  to  what  is  personal,  because  our  attention  is 
necessarily  concentrated  upon  what  we  are  doing,  and 
that  starts  us  from  the  wrong  point.  To  man  the  one 
thing  necessary — in  the  full  sense  of  necessary — is  not 
action  but  passion,  not  doing  but  suffering.  What  we 
do  is  accidental,  in  that  we  need  not  have  done  it.  It 
was  our  act  because  it  was  voluntary.  What  happens 
to  a  man  is  that  which  must  be,  by  this  he  '  is  made.' 
To  man  doing  is  a  joy,  fulfilment  of  power,  life,  what 
all  choose  and  seek.  Strictly  speaking,  the  word 
'  suffering  '  means  only  '  that  which  happens  to  you,' 
but  in  common  use  we  always  take  suffering  to  mean 
pain,  because  what  happens  is  that  which  is  not  chosen. 
We  all  aspire  to  do  great  things,  but  we  shall  hardly  do 
as  many  miracles  as  Christ  did.  We  long  for  eloquence, 
but  no  man  spake  as  this  Man.  Yet  neither  by  act  nor 
speech  did  Christ  redeem  the  world,  but  in  silence  and 
helplessness  because  He  suffered.  It  was  suffering 
which  needed  to  be  redeemed,  for  suffering  is  the  one 
common  human  stuff.  Activity  is  so  far  necessary  to 
us,  since  he  who  will  not  work  cannot  suffer.  If  you 
will  not  try  to  do  big  things,  glorious  things,  you 
will  have  no  disappointment,  no  failure,  no  shame, 
no  Cross,  and  therefore  no  Resurrection.  And  Christ 
alone  could  redeem  suffering,  for  Christ  alone  could 
make  the  renunciation  of  will  in  suffering — which  by 
itself  is  merely  a  negative  acquiescence — into  union 
with  God. 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


251 


There  is  then  a  real  Humanity  for  which  men  were 
made,  in  which  they  become  men,  and  that  Humanity 
is  Christ,  Who  has  re-created  it  in  reconcihation  to 
God  by  His  sacrifice.  '  Apart  from  Christ,  there  is  no 
Humanity,  so  there  are  no  men,  nothing  but  broken 
wreckage  of  what  might  and  should  have  been  men,  bat- 
tered upon  the  rocks  of  their  own  logic,  tossed  up  on 
the  shifting  sands  of  their  disconnected  notions,  feelings, 
desires,  pathetically  struggling  to  weave  out  of  these 
same  notions  and  desires  a  continuity  of  some  kind 
which  would  hold  together  what  might  be  saved.' 

The  Atonement  is  so  much  the  centre  of  all  life  that 
anyone  who  tries  to  explain  it  must  of  necessity  involve 
himself  in  any  number  of  important  and  difficult 
controversies.  On  the  other  hand,  once  we  have 
realised  its  gospel,  we  have  no  alternative  but  either 
to  believe  in  it,  or  to  believe  in  ourselves.  Here  also 
I  have  probably  explained  myself  very  badly,  but  I 
do  not  think  this  is  a  disadvantage.  I  wanted  to  show 
the  force  and  nature  of  the  gospel  of  the  Atonement. 
I  have  put  down  what  occurred  to  me  as  the  essential 
points,  somewhat  hurriedly,  perhaps  confusedly,  quite 
inadequately.  Many  of  those  who  may  read  these  lines 
could  have  done  it  much  better  for  themselves,  and  I 
had  far  rather  they  did.  The  one  central  point  will 
stand  out  all  the  more  clearly,  just  because  no  one 
will  be  tempted  to  criticise  the  statement  as  if  it  were 
a  finished  attempt  to  solve  difficulties  or  to  answer 
objections.  I  am  not  trying  to  maintain  or  justify  a 
position,  but  only  to  show  in  what  it  consists.  I  doubt 
if  I  can  justify  it  satisfactorily  ;  I  do  know  it  justifies 
itself. 

To  a  vast  mass  of  our  modem  thinking,  or  instinct,  or 
writing,  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  Person,  of  His  Divinity 


252    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


— or  Deity — is  *  theology,'  is  '  a  dogma/  is  plainly  some- 
thing added  on  to  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel.  Even 
those  who  personally  accept  traditional  doctrine  regard 
it  as  secondary  and  unimportant,  for  '  personal  life 
cannot  be  appropriated  by  judgments  about  the  Person.' 
*  The  Gospel  is  love,  and  not  opinions.'  Love  !  Did 
anybody  ever  doubt  that  love  was  a  beautiful  ideal  ? 
The  setting  forth  of  an  ideal  is  not  a  gospel  but  a  law. 
What  men  have  doubted  was  whether  it  was  attainable. 
If  they  ever  disputed  the  ideal  it  was  because  they 
despaired  of  its  attainment.  A  gospel  is  not  an  ideal, 
but  a  news  of  something  which  has  made  an  ideal 
possible. 

This  modern  thinking,  which  makes  the  dogma  of 
fact  *  secondary  '  to  personal  appropriation  or  experi- 
ence, suggests  a  very  curious  theory  of  knowledge.  The 
use  of  a  fact  may  be  more  vital  than  the  merely  specula- 
tive knowledge  of  its  existence,  nevertheless  the  use  is 
secondary  since  it  springs  from  the  knowledge.  I  eat 
my  dinner,  because  I  know  that  it  is  ready  and  that  it 
is  edible.  Is  the  order  different  in  religious  matters  ? 
He  that  would  come  to  God  (in  faith) ,  must  first  believe 
that — He  is,  and  that — He  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that 
diligently  seek  Him. 

We  need  not  here  discuss  the  ultimate  refinements  of 
epistemological  theories.  In  religion  we  aire  concerned 
with  the  simple  and  practical  point  of  view,  the  broad 
principles  which  appeal  to  simple  and  practical  people. 
On  this  side  what  we  have  said  is  so  obvious  that  the 
cause  of  confusion  must  lie  deeper.  The  modem 
religious  mind  regards  *  appropriation  '  as  primary  and 
vital,  the  doctrinal  fact  as  secondary  and  unimportant, 
just  because  it  has  accustomed  itself  to  think  of  its  own 
states  as  primary  and  it  has  pretty  well  forgotten  how 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


253 


to  think  of  God.  We  are  so  fascinated  by  the  joy  of 
appropriation  that  we  do  not  care  to  ask  what  there  is 
to  be  appropriated.  Such  an  attitude  is  an  inversion 
of  Christianity  and  of  all  Scripture  together. 

Christianity,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  of  the  Incar- 
nation and  the  Atonement,  is  concerned  wholly  with 
God.  It  was  God  Who  dwelt  among  us,  Whom  we  saw 
and  came  to  know  ;  it  was  God  Who  shared  our  weak- 
ness, chose  the  evil  we  shrink  from,  bore  the  sin  we 
loathe  ;  it  was  God  Who  constituted  a  Humanity,  as 
only  God  could  do,  bringing  us  out  of  ourselves  into 
union  with  Himself.  How  then  can  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divinity — or  Deity — of  Christ  be  a  secondary  or  un- 
important question  of  opinions  ?  That  it  was  God  Who 
has  done  these  things  for  us  is  the  primary  and  essential 
core  and  substance  of  the  gospel,  apart  from  which 
there  is  no  gospel  for  us  an3rwhere  at  all  in  heaven  or 
earth. 

The  teaching  of  the  prophets,  the  teaching  of  our 
Lord  as  given  in  the  Gospels,  the  teaching  of  S.  Paul 
and  S.  John,  S.  Peter  and  S.  James,  and  S.  Jude — all 
alike  are  concerned  primarily  with  God.  The  moral 
teaching  and  ideals,  whether  they  speak  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  conduct  or  the  love  and  joy  and  communion  that 
are  of  feeling  and  experience,  are  all  secondary.  They 
are  the  results  which  follow,  which  by  this  relation  to 
God  have  been  made  possible.  S.  Paul  says  that  man 
in  heathenism,  in  the  religion  without  Christ,  had  been 
immoral,  but  he  was  immoral  just  because  he  was  god- 
less, because  he  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  his  know- 
ledge. 

If  I  call  our  modern  religion  heathen,  it  will  be  re- 
sented. Only  vulgar  and  violent  controversialists  like 
using  terms  because  they  are  resented,  yet  that  is  the 


254    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


very  reason  why  I  feel  bound  to  bring  this  charge, 
though  I  do  not  hke  doing  it.  I  am  trying  to  be  as 
httle  violent  and  vulgar  as  my  character  permits,  but 
this  resentment  blinds  us  to  our  real  danger  and  to  the 
real  meaning  of  heathenism.  In  order  to  be  a  heathen 
it  is  not  necessary  to  worship  a  mumbo- jumbo  with 
mother-of-pearl  eyes,  or  to  offer  flowers  to  Kali.  It  is 
only  necessary  to  take  our  own  judgments  and  our  own 
actions  as  the  centre  of  our  own  world,  to  worship  and 
offer  our  flowers — flowers  of  rhetoric  will  do  quite  well 
— before  the  beauty  of  our  own  conceptions  and  ex- 
periences. 

And  this  is  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world. 
Our  attention  is  of  necessity  so  absorbed  over  the  ideas 
we  are  trying  to  form  and  the  personal  activities  which 
are  their  proper  outgrowth  that  far  the  larger  part  of 
our  conscious  hfe  is  passed  in  a  heathen — or  to  use 
another  word,  a  *  Pelagian ' — atmosphere.  If  we 
reahsed  that,  though  natural  and  inevitable,  this  was 
nevertheless  the  illusion  of  self-consciousness,  and  that 
it  was  God's  purposes  and  God's  activity  working 
through  us,  sometimes  in  spite  of  us,  which  constituted 
the  real  meaning  of  events,  determined  their  true 
results,  the  illusion  would  not  greatly  matter.  When, 
however,  we  are  so  conscious  of  what  is  our  own,  and 
know  so  Httle  of  what  is  His,  it  is  ever  so  easy  to  assume 
that  God  is  what  we  think  and  His  will  what  we  choose. 
And  that  matters  a  great  deal.  Instead  of  that  con- 
sciousness of  our  foolishness  and  ignorance  which  is 
the  ground  of  faith,  we  are  committed  to  a  self-satis- 
faction and  self-will  which  are  the  substance  of  unbelief. 

A  very  popular  and  influential  religious  leader  of  the 
day  has  expressed  with  singular  felicity  the  ideas 
running  in  so  many  minds  by  distinguishing  '  the  Deity,' 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


255 


which  it  was  of  course  impossible  to  ascribe  to  Christ, 
with  '  the  Divinity  '  which,  though  His  in  a  very  special 
way,  He  yet  shares  with  other  good  men.  The  dis- 
tinction was  very  famihar  to  classical  Greek  paganism, 
and  it  is  worth  while  to  note  the  idea  underlying  its 
different  forms.  Fate  was  the  ultimate  impersonal 
power  of  events.  There  were  also  divinities,  greater 
or  less — gods,  strong  but  far  from  omnipotent,  as  well 
as  local  powers  of  the  forest  or  stream.  When  in 
Hellenic  days  men  tried  to  think  more  seriously.  Fate 
became  '  Deity,'  the  Absolute  One  of  all  ideas,  the  Un- 
knowable, the  Unattainable,  the  sum  of  all  negations. 
It  was  Nothing,  for  if  it  was  Reality  it  was  hardly  real. 
Again  it  was  Everything,  all  things  taken  together,  the 
Cosmos.  *  The  Divine  '  had  stood  for  whatever  could 
help  men  or  of  which  men  were  afraid.  It  now  meant 
little  more  than  a  quality — power,  or  goodness  if  good- 
ness were  a  power.  There  were  poets  and  clever  men 
and  heroes  who  could  do  what  plain  men  could  not,  and 
they  were  divine.  Then  Caligula  and  Domitian, 
emperors  bad  as  well  as  good,  were  also  divine  ;  cer- 
tainly they  were  a  big  part  of  the  government  of  the 
world. 

The  results  I  have  summarised  elsewhere, — Deity 
becomes  a  name  for  the  bigness  of  all  things  taken 
together,  and  Divinity  is  a  name  for  the  niceness  of 
some  things  taken  selectively.  But  since  everything 
really  depends  on  the  energy  of  our  activity  and  the 
nature  of  our  judgment  as  to  what  we  count  *  nice  ' — 
upon  which  there  is  very  little  check,  for  what  one  man 
counts  nice  does  not  appeal  to  another — it  makes  little 
difference  whether  we  call  it  God  or  not.  The  idea  of 
God  is  a  result  of  certain  forms  of  our  activity  ;  it  does 
not  stand  for  a  cause.    In  this  way  the  old  thinkers 


256    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


levered  faith  in  God  clean  out  of  the  world.  They 
believed  they  had  levered  God  out  too,  but  the 
apostle — and  the  historians — suggest  that  this  con- 
clusion was  premature. 

The  teaching  of  Christianity,  the  ground  of  that 
teaching  and  the  result  of  that  teaching,  can  hardly 
be  disputed.  Christianity  never  suggested  that  it  had 
found  a  new  way  by  which  men  could  come  to  God. 
It  proclaimed  that  God  had  Himself  come  to  men. 
Now  that  the  separation  between  God  and  man  had 
been  broken  through  it  was  able  to  do  away  with  the 
remoteness  of  God,  the  horrible  impersonality  and 
abstractness  of  the  conception  of  mere  '  Deity.'  If, 
however,  God  was  to  be  a  reality  in  man's  life,  it  was 
no  less  necessary  to  do  away  with  the  confusion  of 
'  Divinities.'  God  was  revealed  as  a  Self,  God  only 
in  Himself  was  to  be  worshipped,  and  all  else  was  the 
work  of  His  hands.  The  times  of  this  ignorance  God 
had  winked  at,  but  now  He  called  men  everywhere 
to  repent. 

On  this  subject  I  may  be  narrow-minded,  though  I 
have  no  desire  to  be  (if  I  had  I  should  know  better  than 
to  confess  it),  but  I  would  summarise  my  view  in  three 
statements,  (i)  I  cannot  imagine  anyone  of  sincere 
Christian  feeling  to  whom  the  practical  godlessness  of 
the  self-consideration  I  have  described  is  not  abhorrent, 
and  I  have  tried  to  suggest  why  it  ought  to  be.  (2)  I 
can  hardly  imagine  anyone  who  is  aware  of  the  habitual 
working  of  his  own  mind  who  is  not  conscious  how 
easily  he  falls  into  that  state.  I  have  tried  to  show 
that  it  is  quite  the  natural  state  for  us  to  be  in.  (3)  I 
can  hardly  imagine  anyone  at  all  conversant  with  what 
is  going  on  in  the  religious  world  to-day  who  would 
not  recognise  how  strong  was  the  tendency  to  accept 


CREEDS  AND  FAITH 


257 


and  justify  this  state  as  normal  and  proper,  as  the  hne 
on  which  '  a  constructive  theology '  should  be  built. 
*  I  should  have  been  well  content  with  a  Christianity 
without  God.'  It  remains  for  me  to  show  how  I  believe 
this  state  has  come  about. 

I  am  afraid  I  must  say  that  I  believe  it  to  be  the 
direct,  though  unintentional,  result  of  certain  features 
in  the  old-fashioned  Protestant  Evangelicalism.  I  am 
afraid  to  say  it,  because  I  am  afraid  it  will  give  offence, 
and  also  I  am  afraid  it  will  be  misunderstood.  I  must, 
therefore,  not  only  give  my  reasons  ;  I  must  safeguard 
my  meaning.  In  the  first  place,  let  me  repeat  that  I 
am  not  here  speaking  as  an  outsider.  At  one  time  of 
my  life  I  was  a  devoted  and  whole-hearted  Protestant 
Evangelical,  with  no  eyes  for  anything  beyond  its  views. 
I  believe  I  have  learnt  to  see  a  great  many  things  which 
once  I  did  not  see  ;  wherefore,  though  I  have  not  ceased 
to  be  a  Protestant,  I  should  no  longer  describe  myself 
as  simply  a  Protestant.  On  the  other  hand,  except 
rather  doubtfully  for  a  year  or  two,  I  have  never  ceased 
to  be  a  whole-hearted  Evangelical. 

Next,  I  do  not  in  the  least  suggest  that  the  old- 
fashioned  EvangeUcals  were  either  weak  or  confused 
in  their  belief  in  God.  They  did  believe  in  God,  and 
their  whole  lives  were  moulded  by  that  belief,  yet  their 
dominant  consciousness  was  rather  of  what  some  by 
way  of  distinction  have  called  *  Jesus- worship.'  Cer- 
tainly all  their  convictions  were  based  on  the  belief 
that  Jesus  was  God,  that  union  with  Him,  love  for  Him, 
was  love  for  God,  yet  the  two  thoughts  had  a  tendency 
to  drift  apart.  A  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  widely 
held  in  evangelical  circles,  was  hardly  other  than  Di- 
theistic.  The  Father  and  the  Son  represented  different 
qualities ;   they  were  not  merely  distinguishable  in 

R 


258    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


operation,  they  performed  different  actions.  The 
EvangeHcals  were  not  indined  to  intellectual  reflection  ; 
they  rather  dreaded  it  as  leading  away  from  depth  of 
feeling.  Through  this  weakness  they  lost  control  of 
feeling,  the  power  of  watching  and  criticising  its  direc- 
tion. Feeling  is  primarily  one's  own,  at  most  it  is 
personal.  Those  who  gave  themselves  up  to  it  lost  the 
breadth  of  their  interest  in  the  manifold  working  of 
God's  doings,  especially  in  directions  many  of  them 
were  apt  to  call  '  worldly.' 

There  are  many  modern  Evangelicals  who  stand  just 
where  their  fathers  stood,  for,  though  there  are  defects 
in  the  position,  where  the  position  is  not  developed,  the 
defects  are  not  realised.  But  there  are  multitudes 
more  in  the  younger  generation  with  whom  it  is  very 
different.  In  them  the  intellect  begins  to  assert  itself 
and  it  finds  no  satisfaction.  Interests  widen,  and  there- 
with come  new  problems  to  which  there  seems  to  be  no 
answer.  The  old  love  for  Christ  remains,  but,  since  all 
emphasis  was  laid  on  feeling,  it  is  now  a  feeling  only, 
comparable  to  aesthetic  or  musical  feehng,  and  feeling 
is  sufficiently  met  by  the  enthusiasm  of  admiration  for 
a  personality,  an  inspiring  example,  a  moral  teaching. 
*  I  could  have  been  well  content  with  a  Christianity 
without  God.' 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY. 

In  the  last  chapter  I  did  not  mean  to  suggest  that  any 
considerable  number  of  Non-Conformists  failed  to  reaUse 
the  necessity  of  faith  in  God  ;  I  do  think,  however,  that 
very  many  fail  to  realise  the  difficulty  of  that  faith, 
the  ease  with  which  it  is  lost  unconsciously,  and  in 
consequence  the  need  of  keeping  it  before  men's  minds. 
To  be  more  precise,  I  think  the  very  intensity  of  their 
devotion  to  the  Person  of  Jesus  Christ  has  thrown 
the  meaning  of  that  devotion  somewhat  out  of  focus, 
and  thereby  obscured  its  most  essential  value  for  life 
purposes. 

Certainly  it  was  for  just  such  practical  purposes  that 
the  Creeds  were  drawn  up  and  that  we  value  them.  I 
propose  to  examine  their  suitability  and  possible 
effectiveness  from  this  side.  I  ought  also  to  consider 
the  objections  and  misunderstandings,  the  disadvan- 
tages and  abuses  to  which  they  are  liable.  I  can  only 
deal  with  their  general  structure  and  idea,  for  ob- 
viously if  I  were  to  attempt  to  treat  the  particular 
phrases  one  by  one  I  ought  to  be  starting  not  a  new 
chapter  but  a  new  book. 

So  far  as  I  can  follow,  there  are  three  main  objections 
brought  against  the  Creeds  : 

(i)  They  are  too  exclusively  intellectual,  demanding 


26o    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


the  assent  of  our  minds  to  formal  statements  rather 
than  the  devotion  of  our  Hves  to  religious  principles. 

(2)  The  statements  thus  put  forward  are  obscure 
and  difficult,  the  expression  of  a  metaphysical  reflection 
which  invites,  and  is  not  above,  criticism. 

(3)  There  is  further  a  very  strong  resentment  against 
the  use  of  ecclesiastical  authority  to  impose  conditions 
of  communion  which  are  in  effect  a  fetter  on  freedom 
of  thought. 

These  three  objections  will  serve  to  divide  what  I 
want  to  say  on  the  idea  of  the  Creeds,  on  their  language, 
on  their  origin  and  use. 

(i)  We  will  begin  then  by  asking  whether  or  how  far 
the  Creeds  can  be  described  as  intellectual  statements 
inviting  assent.  I  am  afraid  I  must  admit  that  some 
unhappy  confusion  in  the  common  ecclesiastical  termin- 
ology lends  a  certain  justification  to  this  view,  neverthe- 
less it  is  nothing  more  than  a  confusion.  The  English 
Church  speaks  of  three  Creeds, that  which  is  commonly 
called  the  Apostles'  Creed,''  "  the  Nicene  Creed,"  and 
"  that  which  is  commonly  called  the  Creed  of  S. 
Athanasius."  It  is,  of  course,  well  known  that  all 
these  titles  are  wrong.  The  Apostles*  Creed  is  the 
Baptismal  Creed  of  the  west,  which  grew  more  or  less 
to  its  present  shape  in  the  course  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries.  The  *  Nicene '  Creed  was  the  creed 
perhaps  of  Jerusalem  with  the  addition  of  some  phrases 
from  the  true  Creed  of  Nicea.  The  Athanasian  Creed 
was  drawn  up  in  the  fifth  century. 

The  point  of  immediate  significance  is  that  the 
Athanasian  Creed  is  not  really  a  Creed  at  all,  but  a 
statement,  similar  to  our  Thirty-nine  Articles,  the  Scotch 
Catechisms,  the  Free  Church  Catechism,  and  many 
other  documents  which  at  and  since  the  Reformation 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  261 


have  been  put  out  by  almost  every  theological  body  in 
turn.  The  Athanasian  '  Creed  '  begins  :  '  Whosoever 
wills  to  be  saved  it  is  necessary.  .  .  The  Thirty-nine 
Articles  begin  :  '  There  is  but  one  living  and  true  God.' 
The  Scotch  Catechism  begins  :  '  The  chief  end  of  man 
is  to.  .  .  The  Free  Church  Catechism  (1898)  begins : 
'  The  Christian  religion  is  the  religion  founded  by  our 
Lord.'  As  they  begin,  so  they  continue  with  state- 
ments which  ask  our  assent.  The  Creeds  proper  do  not 
begin  with  a  statement,  or  at  least  not  with  a  statement 
of  fact  or  theory,  but  with  a  personal  statement.  The 
Apostles'  and  the  Nicene  Creed  begin  in  nearly  identical 
words  :  '  I  believe  in  (one)  God.'  The  Greek  forms 
begin  :  *  We  believe  in.  .  .  .'  Creeds  are  then  the 
assertion  of  a  personal  and  living  relation  or  attitude. 
The  difference  is  that  which  I  tried  to  explain  in  the  last 
chapter  between  faith  and  belief.  Belief,  I  admit,  is 
purely  intellectual ;  faith,  or  belief  in,  is  much  more. 
As  the  form  is  different,  so  the  use  is  different.  Our 
Articles,  for  instance,  are  merely  appended  to  the 
Prayer  Book  as  a  standard  which  our  official  teachers 
are  required  to  accept,  somewhat  like  the  statements  of 
a  trust  deed.  Catechisms  are  used  for  the  instruction 
of  the  young.  The  Athanasian  Creed  is  sung  as  an 
occasional  psalm  or  hymn  with  a  gloria  at  the  end. 
The  Creeds  are  a  normal  part  of  our  worship  ;  they  are 
professed  at  Baptism,  and  constantly  used  in  private 
prayer  for  a  confession  of  that  faith  from  which  worship 
and  Christian  life  proceed.  Their  recitation  is  part  of 
an  attempt  to  keep  this  ever  before  men's  minds — '  I 
believe  in  God.' 

I  am  not  in  the  least  depreciating  the  value  of  Articles 
or  statements.  I  have  a  very  high  regard  for  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  and  still  more  for  the  Athanasian 


262    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Creed.  If  we  are  to  have  faith  we  must  from  time  to 
time  take  stock  also  of  our  beHef ,  but  I  have  undertaken 
to  speak  of  Creeds  and  I  have  not  undertaken  to  speak 
of  formulae  in  general.  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the 
two  very  ancient  Creeds  before  us,  first  because  Creeds 
and  statements  require  to  be  considered  in  different 
ways.  Secondly,  I  am  glad  to  confine  myself  thus, 
because  the  Athanasian  '  Creed  '  is  the  object  of  a 
controversy  so  bitter  that  it  is  difficult  to  say  anything 
without  the  risk  of  misunderstanding  and  possible 
recrimination.  I  am  very  sorry  it  should  be  so,  for  if 
we  could  consider  it  coolly  I  doubt  if  there  is  any 
document  which  could  give  us  so  much  help  in  un- 
ravelling our  perplexities. 

The  Creeds  then  begin  from  this  point :  *  I  believe 
in  God.'  If  they  went  no  further,  I  suppose  no  objec- 
tion would  have  been  made  to  them.  Do  we  not  all 
realise  the  importance  of  keeping  that  before  our 
consciousness  ?  But  the  Creeds  do  go  a  great  deal 
further  in  three  successive  waves  of  expansion. 

First,  we  have  the  core  of  the  Creed  itself  in  a  three- 
fold sentence.  '  I  believe  in  God  the  Father,  and  in 
Jesus  Christ  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit.' 

Secondly,  to  each  of  these  Names  certain  explanatory 
words  are  added  to  show  the  meaning  they  have  for  us. 

I  believe  in  God  the  Father,  (as  being)  the  Almighty, 
the  Maker  of  Heaven  and  earth  ;  and  in  Jesus  Christ 
(as)  His  Only  Begotten  Son,  our  Lord  ;  and  in  the 
Holy  Spirit,  (from  Whom  is)  the  Holy  CathoHc  Church, 
(through  Whom  is)  the  Communion  of  Saints  and  the 
Forgiveness  of  Sins,  (by  Whom  is)  Eternal  life. 

Thirdly,  we  have  a  statement  of  the  historic  means  by 
which  we  have  been  brought  to  this  faith.  We  beheve 
in  Jesus  Christ — Who  for  us  men  and  for  our  salvation 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  263 


came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  Incarnate,  suffered, 
died,  rose  again  from  the  dead,  ascended  into  Heaven, 
sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  shall  come 
again  to  judge. 

I  am  not  just  now  defending  these  expansions,  still 
less  the  particular  phrases  employed,  some  of  which  we 
will  consider  presently.  I  am  only  pointing  out  their 
object.  Of  old,  men  seem  to  have  said  :  '  As  Christians 
the  name  of  God  means  something  to  us  ;  let  us  declare 
what  that  is,  and  how  we  come  by  it.' 

If  we  ask  why  the  Christian  should  have  gone 
further  than  that  simple  phrase  '  I  believe  in  God  ?  ' 
the  answer  is  in  Church  history,  but  it  is  a  very  long 
answer,  and  it  is  read  in  very  different  ways.  It  seems 
to  me,  however,  that  it  is  quite  the  wrong  question  to 
ask.  In  one  sense,  and  in  a  very  true  sense,  the  Chris- 
tian never  did  go  further,  never  wanted  to  go  further. 
The  really  pressing  question  is — How  did  the  Christians 
get  so  far  ?  how  did  they  escape  from  those  old  heathen 
confusions  about  deities  and  divinities  ?  How  did  they 
come  to  find  in  God,  not  the  expression  of  natural 
inference,  but  a  reality  so  intense  that  it  would  bear 
the  weight  of  human  faith  and  human  life,  so  assured 
that  a  man  could  give  up  to  it  that  most  precious  of  all 
things,  his  own  self  ?  How  did  the  Christians  reach  a 
belief  about  God  such  that  they  could  believe  in  Him  ? 
The  Christians  had  no  wish  to  go  beyond  this,  but  they 
were  very  anxious  not  to  stop  short  of  it.  They  were 
very  anxious  also  to  mark  off  the  road  to  its  attainment, 
such  that  the  wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  should  not 
err  therein.  I  trust  we  all  admit  that  so  far  these  were 
very  excellent  objects. 

However,  possibly  the  Church  form  is  unnecessarily 
lengthy  and  I  fully  admit  that  anything  unnecessary 


264    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


is  fatal,  for  it  diverts  attention  from  the  issues  which  it 
ought  to  make  plain.  Let  us  try  whether  we  cannot 
find  a  short  cut  to  what  we  want.  I  have  already  given 
reasons  why  I  do  not  think  *  I  believe  in  God  '  would  be 
sufficient.  It  represents  admirably  the  final  object, 
and  our  Creeds  put  it  in  the  forefront  of  their  statement, 
but  by  itself  it  is  a  most  difficult  conception. 

There  are,  however,  two  others  with  which  I  happen 
to  be  famihar.  A  certain  well-known  Unitarian  writer, 
still  very  popular,  remarks  that  he  is  content  with  a 
Creed  much  shorter  and  simpler — '  My  Creed  is  "  the 
Fatherhood  of  God,  and  the  Brotherhood  of  men."  '  A 
Creed  is  a  common  form  for  the  use  of  common  and 
simple  people.  I  will  consider  this  from  the  purely 
practical  side. 

In  the  first  place,  I  find  it  a  little  hard  to  follow. 
As  it  stands  it  is  not  quite  grammar,  and  I  am  not  sure 
how  I  am  meant  to  take  it.  Since  it  is  called  a  Creed, 
and  since  we  are  looking  for  something  to  beheve  in, 
am  I  meant  to  understand  the  words  *  I  believe  in,'  as 
prefixed  ?  If  this  is  its  obvious  intention,  even  then  I 
must  say  the  sentence  does  not  appeal  to  me.  My  father 
and  my  brother  have  a  very  real  meaning,  and  I  can 
believe  in  them.  Fatherhood  and  brotherhood  are  too 
abstract,  too  metaphysical,  too  un-sohd  for  me.  I  have 
an  uncomfortable  feeling  that  abstract  terms  stand  for 
notions,  and  that  professing  belief  in  my  own  notions 
is  a  very  popular  but  not  very  healthy  way  of  believing 
in  myself.  When  I  get  into  a  difficulty  in  cHmbing,  I 
like  to  be  sure  I  have  a  leader  who  knows  what  he  is 
doing  and  a  good  rope — Alpine  Club  pattern  preferred. 
These  I  can  trust.  Leadership  and  the  use  of  ropes  we 
can  talk  about  on  the  way  home. 

I  do  not  want  to  cavil  at  expressions,  and  perhaps 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  265 


'  I  believe  in  God  the  Father  '  was  what  the  writer  really 
meant.  I  am  quite  willing  to  take  it  so,  but  then  what 
shall  we  make  of  the  second  clause  ?  Should  that  run 
*  I  believe  in  men  as  my  brothers  ?  '  *  I  believe  in  men  ' 
hardly  seems  in  place  in  a  religious  creed.  Another 
religious  writer  once  said — *  Put  not  your  trust  in 
princes  nor  in  any  child  of  man  for  there  is  no  help  in 
them  ' ;  and  yet  another — *  Cursed  be  the  man  that 
trusteth  in  men.' 

Perhaps  after  all  the  original  phrase  was  right,  and 
it  was  not  men,  but  the  latent  brotherhood  in  them  in 
which  we  should  trust.  If  it  means  the  brotherhood 
they  have  in  themselves,  I  am  afraid  I  cannot  believe 
in  it,  and  in  face  of  all  our  nationahsms  and  imperialisms, 
political  and  religious  oppositions,  trade  competitions 
and  combines,  I  do  not  see  how  anyone  else  can.  Truly 
advertisements  of  all  sorts,  commercial,  political  and 
religious,  are  urging  me  to  faith,  but  as  each  also  warns 
me  against  faith  in  anything  except  its  own  goods,  the 
demand  is  not  convincing.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  our 
phrase  really  means  us  to  profess  our  belief  in  that 
brotherhood  of  man  which  God  Himself  made  by  taking 
our  nature,  redeeming  it  from  sin,  placing  it  on  the 
right  hand  of  God,  I  gladly  consent.  The  redeemed 
brotherhood  of  man  in  Christ  is  a  reality  well  worth 
beheving  in,  and  brings  the  second  clause  into  unity 
with  the  first  clause.  But  if  this  is  what  the  phrase 
means  then  it  ought  to  be  expressed,  and  I  do  not 
know  any  better  way  of  expressing  it  than  the  Church 
Creed.  Certainly  it  is  what  the  Church  Creed  meant 
to  express. 

The  second  form  referred  to  was  put  before  me  by  a 
young  friend  who  thought  '  I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ ' 
was  sufficient.    In  very  early  days  apparently  it  was, 


266    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


but  I  do  not  think  it  is  now.  Did  my  friend  not  believe 
in  God,  or  did  he  think  that  too  unimportant  or  too 
obvious  to  need  mentioning  ?  I  have  tried  to  point 
out  how  this  looking  at  Christ  apart  from  God  has 
robbed  belief  in  Christ  of  all  its  force.  Numbers  still 
use  the  phrase  as  meaning,  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
their  help,  but  that  thinking  about  His  life  is  helpful. 
Some  mean  only  that  thinking  about  a  beautiful  but 
imaginary  life  as  drawn  by  an  early  unknown  writer 
is  helpful.  Further,  except  in  regard  to  the  first 
person  singular,  this  form  has  no  reference  to  man,  a 
subject  on  which  the  Unitarian  form,  not  unreasonably, 
lays  so  much  stress. 

From  the  beginning  the  separation  between  God  and 
man  has  been  the  difficulty  of  human  life.  No  adequate 
bridge  could  be  thrown  across  the  gulf  which  divides  a 
fragmentary  and  limited  life  from  its  infinite  and  perfect 
whole,  the  actual  from  the  ideal,  the  practice  of  life 
from  its  end.  We  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  because  we 
believe  that  in  Him  and  by  Him  these  things  have  been 
brought  together.  Surely  all  experience  shows  that  this 
faith  needs  stating.  The  statement  itself  is  not  faith, 
but  it  does  help  us  to  keep  it  before  our  minds,  and  for 
this  purpose  what  the  faith  really  is,  that  the  statement 
must  express.  Of  the  two  forms  I  have  examined,  one 
states  the  two  factors  of  difficulty  without  a  hint  of  how 
they  are  to  be  reconciled  ;  the  other  gives  the  factor  of 
reconciliation  without  even  an  allusion  to  what  it  is 
reconciling.  Even  if  we  add  the  two  forms  together 
there  would  be  nothing  to  show  whether  we  meant 
these  terms — God,  Jesus  Christ  and  Man — for  three 
separate  objects  of  belief  or  to  show  whether  we  meant 
them  as  one,  to  show  how  they  were  brought  together 
or  what  they  had  to  do  with  one  another. 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  267 


Forms  are  not  simple  because  they  are  short  but 
because  they  are  clear  ;  we  do  not  get  rid  of  difficulties 
by  hiding  their  omission  under  sonorous  ambiguity. 
We  have  learnt  a  good  deal  from  experience,  and  we 
have  learnt  this,  that '  God  made  man  upright,  but  they 
have  sought  out  many  inventions.'  The  worst  of  these 
short  statements  is  that  they  are  so  intolerably  com- 
plex— involved  in  such  a  maze  of  implications,  sup- 
pressed intentions,  unresolved  ambiguities,  meanings 
taken  for  granted  but  not  expressed,  understandings 
which  are  not  understood. 

(2)  So  far,  however,  as  I  can  understand,  the  real 
objection  against  the  Creeds  does  not  lie  in  regard  to 
the  facts  asserted,  but  in  regard  to  what  some  have 
called  '  the  dogmatic  superstructure  of  interpretations — 
cosmological  and  metaphysical, — by  which  the  facts 
are  encumbered.' 

This  is  to  us  somewhat  perplexing.  Few  things  in 
Church  history  are  more  remarkable  than  (i)  the 
intense,  to  my  mind  almost  exaggerated,  dislike  and 
resentment  shown  by  early  Church  writers  at  the 
intrusion  of  '  philosophy  and  dialectics  '  into  Christian 
belief  ;  (2)  the  absolute  conviction  of  all  that  what 
they  were  laying  down  were  the  simple  fundamental 
facts.  Equally  certainly,  it  is  in  this  sense  that  we 
have  taken  the  Creeds  and  that  we  should  wish  them 
to  be  taken  now. 

It  would  seem  that  there  must  be  some  misunder- 
standing about  the  use  of  the  word  fact,  which  certainly 
is  an  ambiguous  word  enough.  I  should  like  then  to 
ask  what  cosmology  and  metaphysics  stand  for,  what 
they  have  or  have  had  to  do  with  religion  and  theology. 
After  all  a  dogma  only  means  an  assertion  of  something 
held  to  be  necessary.    We  will  ask  whether  the  dogmas 


268    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


implied  in  the  Creed  can  be  rightly  called  facts  or 
interpretations. 

Man's  earliest  problem  is  the  problem  of  the  world 
or  cosmos.  He  claims  to  be  above  the  world,  yet  the 
world  is  so  much  greater  than  himself,  for  his  life  is 
made  out  of  it  and  lived  in  it.  The  world  seems  to 
be  intelligible,  but  how  can  a  fragment  understand  the 
whole  of  which  it  is  but  a  part.  Would  not  this  be 
for  the  part  to  '  comprehend  '  the  whole  ?  We  should 
understand  the  world, — or  if  we  could  not  do  that,  at 
least  we  should  understand  our  faith  that  it  had  an 
intelligible  purpose,  if  we  knew  Him  Who  ruled  it. 
All  primitive  reUgion  begins  therefore  from  cosmology. 

If  anyone  objects  to  our  bringing  cosmology  into 
religion  he  quite  misapprehends  the  nature  of  the 
difficulty.  We  would  ever  so  gladly  leave  cosmology 
alone  and  the  cosmos  too,  if  it  would  only  leave  us 
alone.  Men  did  not  make  a  theory  of  the  world  and 
then  subject  their  religion  to  it.  They  turned  to  rehgion 
in  the  hope  of  finding  a  tolerable  cosmology,  that  is,  of 
finding  some  interpretation  or  meaning  of  the  world 
which  would  enable  them  to  face  it  with  a  good  heart. 

When  however  men  learnt  to  think,  there  were  many 
to  whom  the  natural  world  of  outer  experience,  im- 
personal and  insensate,  seemed  rather  beneath  than 
above  understanding.  The  true  order  of  things  lay  in 
the  intelligence.    God  was  the  Supreme  Intelligence. 

There  were  then  two  different  bases  to  start  from. 
Every  thought  of  God  that  could  be  framed  must  be  a 
reflex  of,  or  an  abstraction  from,  is  conditioned  by,  one 
of  these  two — either  experience  of  the  world  and  its 
happenings,  or  experience  of  man  and  his  thinkings. 
It  was  not  what  he  meant  to  do,  but  man  did  after  all 
make  a  cosmological  and  a  metaphysical  religion  because 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  269 


he  could  not  help  it.  I  admit  that  such  religion  must  be 
useless.  If  we  take  cosmology  to  include  natural 
science,  and  metaphysics  to  include  the  ideas  and 
methods  of  human  thought,  they  have  many  difficulties 
strictly  their  own  for  which  we  may  trust  them  to  find 
a  solution.  If,  however,  we  consider  them  more  deeply 
in  relation  to  human  Hfe,  obviously  they  cannot  them- 
selves provide  an  answer  to  the  perplexities  which  are 
found  and  expressed  in  them.  Else  would  not  cos- 
mology and  metaphysics  have  ceased  to  be  written 
about,  for  their  worshippers  once  purged  would  have 
had  no  more  consciousness  of  perplexity  ? 

When,  therefore,  men  fled  to  religion,  fled  to  the 
thought  of  God,  as  a  refuge  from  the  world  and  as  the 
ultimate  of  their  own  ideas,  that  thought  of  God  was 
their  own  thought,  full  of  the  difficulties  and  contra- 
dictions they  had  brought  with  them.  They  were  but 
fleeing  to  themselves,  and  the  world  following  hard 
after  took  their  religion  captive.  Whatever  was  to  be 
a  dehverance  of  the  human  mind  could  not  be  merely 
a  mind-product ;  it  must  be  a  message.  The  con- 
tradictions which  were  made  in  human  thought  could 
only  be  solved  by  a  Gospel,  by  something  from 
without. 

*  Must  not  that  Gospel  be  simple  ?  '  The  term  is  mis- 
leading. Certainly,  the  Gospel  itself  must  be  and  is 
simple.  But  just  because  it  is  simple,  if  we  insist  on  a 
simple  apphcation  in  a  world  full  of  complexities  and 
contradictions,  we  shall  only  get  confusion.  Love  and 
justice  are  so  obviously  and  really  simple  that  we  all 
agree  about  their  desirability,  but  in  most  of  our 
practical  questions,  social  and  political,  the  only  obvious 
thing  is  that  the  partizans  on  both  sides  differ  so  strongly 
about  their  obvious  justice  that  they  have  forgotten  love 


270    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


altogether.  I  called  a  bank  a  '  temple  of  faith/  and 
faith  is  simple,  but  I  never  supposed  we  could  run  a 
bank  '  simply  '  on  faith. 

I  fully  admit  therefore  that  cosmology  and  meta- 
physics, which  are  human  ways  of  thinking,  cannot 
supply  an  answer  to  the  questions  of  human  life,  nor 
perhaps  even  supply  the  form  of  the  answer,  though  of 
this  I  am  less  sure.  But  are  they  not  providing  the 
form  of  the  questions  ?  Are  they  not  stating  the  diffi- 
culties ?  If  the  reader  does  not  like  these  technical 
polysyllabic  words,  neither  do  I.  In  plain  English,  if 
there  is  a  Gospel  at  all,  there  are  two  problems  it  must 
face — the  meaning  of  the  world  men  have  to  live  in, 
and  the  meaning  of  the  thoughts  men  form  about  its 
truth  and  purpose. 

What  sort  of  gospel  must  this  be,  and  what  sort  of  a 
religion  will  it  require  ?  The  modern  distinction 
between  the  religious  and  the  cosmological  seems  to  me 
entirely  false.  We  may  start  in  two  ways.  We  may 
have  a  humanitarian  religion,  based  on  our  notion  of 
human  needs  and  conditions,  or  we  may  have  a  cosmo- 
logical religion,  based  on  our  notion  of  what  the  world  is 
really  like.  Either  of  these  two  may  be  primitive  or 
may  be  metaphysical  according  to  the  amount  of  think- 
ing men  put  into  them,  but  since  they  spring  from 
human  thought,  neither  can  be  a  gospel.  When  God 
revealed  Himself  to  men  according  to  the  Gospel,  then 
we  might  have  a  theological  religion,  based  on  what 
we  had  learnt  of  God. 

The  message  that  should  be  a  gospel  of  deliverance 
must  then  be,  first,  of  a  God  Absolute,  in  Whom  we 
live  and  move  and  have  our  being,  Who  is  above  all 
and  before  all.  Self-contained  and  Self-perfect.  The 
God  Who  could  help  us  in  face  of  the  world  could  not 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY 


271 


be  dependent  on  us  nor  on  the  world  for  the  fulness  and 
activity  of  His  existence.  But,  secondly,  He  must  be 
Self-expressed  in  Creation  and  in  converse  with  men. 

Could  any  doctrine  meet  these  diverse  requirements  ? 
Christianity  certainly  believed  that  they  were  met  by 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Mind,  thought  and  will 
are  the  three  elements  of  our  own  self-hood  and  person- 
ahty,  each  involved  in  every  act,  and  each  taking  its 
proper  place  in  that  act,  distinct  yet  wholly  insever- 
able, a  Trinity,  three  and  yet  one.  For  if  I  think,  there 
is  implied  a  mind  which  thinks,  a  thought  which  the 
mind  is  thinking,  a  will  which  acts  in  thinking.  If  I 
act,  the  act  which  is  of  my  will  is  the  expression  of 
the  thought  which  my  mind  has.  Of  these  the  man 
constitutes  a  living  person,  a  centre  of  movement,  not 
a  mere  part  of  the  general  drift  of  things.  Here  is  the 
type  of  the  Trinity  of  God — the  Father  and  the  Son, 
Word  or  Thought,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  Who  is  Power 
or  Love,  the  Activity  of  the  Will. 

Our  personality  is  imperfect  because  we  are  depen- 
dent on  what  is  outside  of  us  for  the  material  of  our 
thought,  and  our  thought  is  made  up  of  different 
thoughts  ;  it  is  never  the  whole  realisation  of  our  minds, 
still  less  is  it  the  whole  truth  of  things.  Think  as  we 
may,  we  can  only  know  what  seems  true  to  us,  and  we 
can  only  desire  what  seems  good  to  us,  and  these  must 
be  different  from,  at  best  part  of,  the  truth  which  God 
knows  and  the  plan  He  purposes.  If  God  be  what  we 
have  taken  Him  to  be,  His  Thought  is  perfect  and  single, 
not  dependent  upon  what  things  are  but  the  cause 
thereof.    In  God  only  is  Personality  complete. 

*  This  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  a  human  way  of 
thinking.'  Doubtless,  for  if  men  think  there  is  no  other 
way.    *  But  if  we  apply  human  analogies  to  God,  we 


272    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


are  making  God  in  our  own  image/  May  be,  but  let  us 
consider.  All  theories  must  come  from  our  minds,  for 
there  is  nowhere  else  they  can  be  formed.  We  are 
subject  to  space  and  time,  and  we  apply  the  ideas  to 
nature.  It  happens  that  they  are  apphcable,  for  to 
space  and  time  nature  also  is  subject.  We  find  in 
ourselves  thought  and  feeling.  Children  apply  these 
ideas  to  stones  and  flowers  as  well  as  to  animals  and 
people.  Presently  we  find  that  there  are  limits  to 
their  applicability.  We  apply  to  God  the  thought  of 
personahty  as  we  find  it  in  ourselves.  Perhaps  it  is  all 
wrong,  for  certainly  we  are  making  God  in  our  image. 
Quite  so,  but  perhaps  it  is  not  all  wrong,  because  we 
are  made  in  His. 

If  this  doctrine  of  God  as  Trinity  had  been  constructed 
by  human  thinking  purely  in  order  to  meet  the  obvious 
difficulties  of  human  thought,  I  quite  admit  that  the 
most  which  could  be  said  for  it  would  be  that  it  was  the 
most  plausible,  possibly  the  only  plausible  and  con- 
sistent, hypothesis,  and  one  does  not  build  the  faith  of 
a  life  on  a  hypothesis  which  is  not  verified.  But  then 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  never  was  constructed  in  this 
way,  although  some  philosophic  thinkers  came  astonish- 
ingly near  it.  The  Christians  reached  it,  not  by  abstract 
thinking,  but  by  thinking  over  the  revelation  of  God  in 
Jesus  Christ.  Who  was  this  Who  called  God  His  own 
Father,  Who  showed  Himself  as  the  Ruler  of  all  natural 
powers.  Who  acted  as  the  judge  of  men,  assumed  the 
right  to  lay  down  all  moral  law.  Who  declared  faith  in 
Himself  to  be  the  way  of  hfe  and  salvation.  Who  by  His 
death  had  triumphed  over  death  and  sin  ?  It  is  true 
that  Jesus  Christ  had  stated  no  theory  nor  explanation 
of  the  exact  nature.  He  very  rarely  made  any  claim,  of 
Lordship  ;  He  continuously  assumed  and  exercised  it. 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  273 


We  are  not  left  to  agree  or  differ  according  as  we  judge 
of  Him  ;  we  can  only  submit  or  rebel,  for  we  are  being 
judged  by  Him.  Yet  the  question  remained.  Men 
could  not  well  help  asking,  what  was  the  relation  of 
Christ  to  God,  which,  without  being  fully  stated,  was 
yet  being  so  manifestly  assumed  and  exercised  ? 

Primitive  Christianity  began  from  simple  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ,  but  plainly  that  was  to  them  faith  in  God, 
Who  had  thus  revealed  Himself,  taken  our  nature  and 
redeemed  us  from  sin.  *  Can  we  not  go  back  to  this 
simple  faith  ?  '  By  all  means.  Our  whole  business  is 
to  find  and  make  sure  we  keep  the  road  thither. 

The  early  Christians  to  whom  I  referred  were  not  in 
the  least  interested  in  speculations  about  the  world,  for 
they  were  convinced  it  was  soon  to  pass  away — which 
was  more  or  less  true,  though  not  in  the  fashion  they 
expected.  When  the  new  world  did  come,  it  was  also 
not  quite  of  the  kind  they  expected ;  but  God  evidently 
meant  that  most  of  them  should  live  in  it,  which  they 
seem  to  have  found  as  troublesome  and  unsatisfactory 
a  business  as  we  do.  One  result  of  living  in  a  world 
was  that  Christianity  had  got  to  face  a  world,  and  to 
find  an  answer  to  various  world-questions  hinted  at 
above,  which  before  no  one  had  thought  over. 

Some  of  us  have  an  idea  that  in  the  third  and  fourth 
century  Christians  developed  a  sudden  passion  for 
metaphysics  and  speculative  theories.  That  is  false 
to  history  and  even  a  little  absurd.  Of  course  there 
were  men  who  loved  being  clever  ;  and  they  were  a 
great  nuisance  as  they  always  are.  Also  there  were 
some  men  with  a  real  power  of  steady  thinking  and 
reasoning,  and  they  could  be  very  useful,  as  they  some- 
times are.  Equally  of  course  most  people  were  rather 
bored  by  their  efforts,  suspicious  of  them,  unable  to  see 

s 


274    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


any  difference  between  steady  thinking  and  mere  clever- 
ness, rather  apt  to  prefer  the  cleverness,  very  much  as 
we  do.  But  there  do  come  times  when  men,  however 
reluctantly,  must  find  out  what  they  are  doing  and  what 
they  mean.  Some  of  the  answers  men  began  to  offer 
were  helpful ;  some  were  confused  and  inconsistent, 
leading  to  the  most  impossible  consequences,  but  the 
Church  for  the  most  part  let  men  find  their  own  way 
without  being  greatly  put  out. 

In  the  fourth  century  a  certain  Arius  advanced  a  very 
definite  position,  and  stuck  to  it,  consequences  or  none. 
To  use  the  singularly  lucid  modern  terms  I  quoted 
above,  he  affirmed  that  above  all  was  the  abstract 
Deity,  the  Unknown.  Jesus  Christ,  Who  came  to  us, 
was  a  Divinity,  greater  than  all  angels  or  men,  begotten 
before  the  world,  but  still  very  far  from  God  Himself, 
only  a  created  being.  Then  the  Church  began  to  wake 
up  to  the  necessity  of  making  up  her  mind  what  she 
beheved  in,  and  at  least  she  was  clear  so  far  that  it  was 
not  this.  She  believed  in  God.  A  man  might  believe 
that  an  Ultimate  existed.  Unknown,  and  Unattainable. 
But  that  was  not  something  a  man  could  believe  in. 
Men  should  worship  God,  but  for  this  same  reason  to 
worship  anything  less  than  God  is  pure  heathenism. 
It  is  God  for  whom  man  is  athirst.  The  Gospel,  if  it 
was  a  Gospel,  was  and  could  be  a  Gospel  only  about 
God,  not  about  '  Divinities,'  nor  about  super- Arch- 
angels. This,  therefore,  was  the  decision  of  Nicaea. 
Jesus  Christ,  He  Who  was  made  known  to  us  and 
redeemed  us,  was  God,  '  of  the  Essence  of  God,'  *  of 
one  Substance  with  the  Father.' 

These  words  might  seem  simple  and  clear  enough. 
If  people  had  not  found  so  many  entanglements  in 
them,  I  should  certainly  have  thought  they  were.  Even 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY 


275 


in  that  day,  however,  there  were  men — ^whom  the 
historians  call  semi-Arians — who  objected  that  the 
phrases  were  philosophy,  that  they  *  were  not  in 
Scripture,'  and  so  forth.  It  was  very  soon  evident  that 
they  were  not  in  fact  objecting  to  theories,  for  they  had 
theories  of  their  own.  They  objected  to  saying  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  one  with  the  Father,  because  they 
would  not  say  more  than  that  He  was  like  the  Father. 
Did  this  really  make  any  difference  ?  The  semi- 
Arians  said  that  it  was  quite  sufficient ;  it  was  indeed 
better  than  the  Nicene  phrase.  It  presented  Christ  in 
His  own  proper  work,  without  unnecessary  '  judgments 
about  a  Person.'  We  had  been  ignorant  of  God's  true 
nature.  *  Christ  came  that  He  might  show  it  to  us, 
not  in  words  but  in  deed.'  God  was  loving — like  this  ; 
and  powerful — like  this  ;  and  in  the  habit  of  doing  this 
and  this  kind  of  good.  What  more  could  we  want  ? 
What  indeed  ?  Only  those  troublesome  orthodox 
would  go  on  insisting  that  it  was  not  even  the  beginning 
of  Christianity.  '  What  more  could  they  want  ?  '  Oh, 
nothing  except  God,  and  without  Him  nothing  else  was 
of  any  use  at  all.  To  know  God's  qualities — which  a 
man  can  get  out  of  a  dictionary  if  he  wants  to — is  not 
to  know  God,  and  it  does  not  bring  us  any  nearer  to 
Him  ;  it  is  but  an  explanation  of  the  depth  of  what 
sunders  us. 

This  semi-Arian  theory  was  absurd  on  its  own  show- 
ing. God  was  revealed  as  love ;  yet  He  loved  us  so 
little  that  He  would  not  do  the  one  thing  that  we 
longed  for.  He  would  not  come  to  us — unless  indeed 
where  He  had  been  revealed  in  power,  He  nevertheless 
had  so  little  power  that  He  could  not.  *  But  He  had 
sent  someone  Like  Himself  ?  '  Like  God  ?  What  can 
the  words  mean  ?    There  is  nothing  on  earth,  neither 


276    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


in  the  heavens  above  nor  in  the  depths  beneath,  who  is 
in  the  least  hke  God  in  this  sense.  And  if  there  were, 
who  cares  ?  Do  we  propose  to  say  that  such  will  do 
equally  well  ?  What  heathen  idolatry  is  this  which 
starts  finding  substitutes  for  God  ?  If  anyone  dis- 
agrees with  me  here,  I  shall  not  appeal  to  any  theologi- 
cal treatise.  Let  him  search  out  the  first  orphan  child, 
and  try  whether  he  can  explain  that  there  are  many 
other  good  women  as  well  as  mother  who  has  gone 
home,  and  that  some  of  them  are  like  her.  If  he  can 
do  it,  if  the  words  do  not  stick  in  his  throat,  I  will 
promise  to  argue  with  him  no  further. 

'  There  was  somebody  very  like  God,  astonishingly 
like,  and  He  gave  us  the  knowledge  of  God.*  Yes  ? 
And  Who  was  it  Who  bore  for  us  the  curse  of  sin,  broke 
down  the  separation  between  us  and  God,  brought  us 
light  and  immortality  and  life  by  bringing  us  into  union 
with  Himself  ?  Was  that  also  this  most  excellent  sub- 
stitute ?  Then  here  is  the  gospel,  that  we  have  clean 
missed  God  and  God  does  not  care.  Yet  we  did  love 
Him.    '  Somebody  like  God ' ! 

'  This  is  a  mere  travesty  of  what  was  meant  or  of 
what  anybody  means  to-day.'  I  would  to  God  it  were, 
but  of  course  it  is  a  travesty  of  what  anybody  intends 
to  mean  or  ever  goes  on  meaning.  Out  of  such  absur- 
dities one  must  come  in  one  direction  or  another,  and 
sooner  or  later  one  does  ;  I  am  only  urging  the  immense 
importance  of  finding  out  what  we  do  mean  and  saying 
it  distinctly  that  we  and  others  may  keep  it  before  us. 
We  argue  against  theories  and  theoretical  statements, 
but  we  do  not  thereby  succeed  in  keeping  theory  out  of 
anything  whatever.  We  only  succeed  in  blinding  our- 
selves to  the  theories,  that  is,  the  principles  and  ideas, 
which  we  are  unconsciously  accepting  and  on  which  we 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY 


are  acting.  There  is  no  one  so  much  at  the  mercy  of 
theories  as  those  who  scoff  at  them,  and  have  lost  there- 
fore the  power  of  testing  and  criticising  them. 

The  meaning  of  Athanasius  and  '  the  Orthodox  '  was 
as  simple,  as  deep  and  wonderful,  as  that  of  the  child 
who  '  wants  mother.'  Those  who  would  not  face  the 
simplicity  of  it  were  just  those  who  brought  in  all  these 
confusing  ideas  about  likeness  and  attributes,  and  who 
had  gained  nothing  when  they  had  done  it  for  the  reason 
stated.  They  could  not  seriously  mean  or  go  on 
meaning  it.  They  slipped  into  it ;  they  said  and  did 
not  mean  it ;  they  played  with  it  and  declined  to  con- 
sider its  consequences.  In  the  end  there  was  nothing 
to  mean  at  all,  except  that  God  was  a  Name  for  nothing 
in  particular,  and  that  Christ  was  a  very  nice  person 
(about  whom  historically  we  know  very  little  except 
that  He  seems  to  have  known  very  little  about  Himself) , 
and  that  we  also  are  very  nice,  or  that  some  of  us  are 
if  we  take  the  trouble.  *  If  Christ  be  not  God  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  word,  then  God  is  darkness  and  in 
Him  is  no  light  at  all.' 

I  thought  it  worth  while  to  follow  the  main  line  of 
this  controversy  in  order  to  illustrate  my  point  that  the 
Church  certainly  thought  that  in  the  Creeds  she  was 
stating  facts,  and  that  she  was  not  giving  philosophical 
or  metaphysical  interpretations  of  them.  '  Can  it, 
however,  be  denied  that  this  word  Essence  or  Substance 
belongs  to  metaphysical  language  ?  ' 

The  whole  idea  is  an  entire  misunderstanding  of  the 
very  meaning  of  metaphysics.  Hegel — and  there  is 
hardly  any  higher  authority  to  quote  on  this  subject — 
said  that  metaphysics  neither  had  nor  wanted  a  language 
or  terminology  of  its  own.  It  was  entirely  concerned 
with  the  meaning  and  implication  of  the  commonest 


278    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


words  and  ideas.  I  said  above  that  the  Godhead  of 
Christ  '  was  the  very  core  and  substance  of  the  Gospel.* 
Metaphysically  I  am  very  much  interested  in  the  theory 
of  Substances  or  Essences.  I  rather  fancy  my  opinions 
on  this  important  topic  are  somewhat  different  from 
those  held  by  many  modern  students  in  philosophy. 
Are  my  readers  anxious  to  hear  my  views  ?  No  ?  I 
was  afraid  they  wouldn't  be,  and  I  am  afraid  they  are 
right.  Do  my  theories  matter  a  farthing  rushlight  to 
the  intelligibility  of  the  sentence  ?  WiU  the  physics* 
professor  contend  that  the  farmer's  wife  does  not  know 
what  boiling  water  means  because  she  does  not  know  the 
mysteries  of  its  physical  metabolism  ?  Nay,  but  does 
the  professor  know  ?  I  grant  that  he  can  go  a  few  steps 
further.  Anyhow  the  old  lady  knows  enough  to  make 
very  good  tea  and  do  the  potatoes  decently,  in  regard 
to  which  she  is  probably  two  holes  up  over  some  physical 
professors. 

Common  words  mean  what  common  words  do  mean. 
Professors  of  physics  and  metaphysics  try  to  find  out  as 
much  as  they  can  of  all  the  wonders  which  underlie 
them  and  which  underlie  our  behef.  I  have  a  great 
respect  for  professors  ;  I  may  be  one  myself  some  day  ; 
but  in  the  cramped  atmosphere  of  the  lecture  room  it  is 
much  too  easy  to  forget  that  we  are  studying  a  meaning, 
and  that  having  a  meaning  or  knowing  what  one  means, 
and  having  adequate  ideas  or  theories  as  to  what  is 
implied  in  our  meaning,  are  very  different  things. 

'  What  did  the  Fathers  mean  by  substance  '  ?  They 
meant  just  what  everybody  means,  just  what  I  meant 
in  the  sentence  quoted — that  which  makes  a  thing  what 
it  is.  This  was  the  substance  of  the  Gospel,  because 
without  this  it  would  not  have  been  a  Gospel,  or  it 
would  have  a  quite  different  Gospel.   '  But  what  is  this 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  279 


mysterious  "substance**  which  makes  a  "thing"  what  it 
is? '  Ah,  now  that  is  metaphysics.  There  are  plenty  of 
reasons  why  that  is  a  question  worth  thinking  over,  but 
it  is  not  so  important  that  anyone  need  be  bothered 
over  it  unless  he  wants  to,  and  I  fancy  the  majority 
would  prefer  not. 

*  But  the  Fathers  had  a  theory  of  substance/  With- 
out wishing  to  be  disrespectful,  I  should  suppose  the 
Holy  Fathers  of  the  fourth  century  were  uncommonly 
like  our  very  reverend  Fathers  in  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury. Some  of  them  '  did  not  go  in  for  metaphysics ' 
and  had  no  theory  at  all.  The  rest  had  no  theory 
because  they  had  a  great  many  theories.  Some  of  their 
theories  were  very  suggestive,  and  some  perhaps  rather 
absurd.  They  are  of  great  interest  to  the  student  of 
historical  philosophy,  but  there  is  no  need  to  consider 
them  as  undergraduate  essays. 

'  The  fourth  century  interpreted  the  Trinity  in  cate- 
gories of  Substance.'  This  is  the  final  stricture  of 
modern  criticism.  For  once  I  shall  not  contradict,  for 
I  will  be  frank  even  when  I  am  put  to  shame.  Certainly 
because  of  my  ignorance,  probably  by  reason  of  my 
density,  I  never  could  make  out  what  the  phrase  meant. 

(3)  Finally,  I  promised  to  deal  with  the  use  and  origin 
of  the  Creeds,  and  the  kind  of  authority  which  belongs 
to  the  statements  impHed  in  them.  I  hope  indeed  that 
what  I  have  said  above  will  explain  a  good  deal  of  their 
use  and  origin,  but  I  want  now  to  consider  these  in 
regard  to  authority.  Why  after  all  should  we  accept 
these  words  in  preference  to  any  other  ? 

The  Creeds,  or  at  least  the  Nicene  Creed,  comes  to  us 
with  the  authority  of  Church  Councils.  What  is  a 
Council,  and  what  authority  can  it  claim  ?  These  are 
strangely  important  questions  because  of  the  hght 


28o    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


thrown  by  their  answers  on  the  idea  of  Church  action, 
but  in  some  ways  they  are  difficult  questions. 

Our  minds  are  naturally  taken  up  with  the  idea  of  a 
parhament  which  is  a  meeting  of  representatives  elected 
to  decide  what  is  for  our  convenience.  The  majority 
outvotes  the  minority,  for  the  convenience  of  the 
majority  is  the  most  we  can  hope  to  reach.  But  a 
Council  was  not  in  the  least  like  a  Parliament.  It  was 
not  a  meeting  of  elected  representatives.  Except  when 
drawing  up  rules  or  '  canons,'  it  was  not  concerned  with 
convenience  but  with  truth.  Consequently,  as  I  will 
show  presently,  it  did  not  decide  by  majorities.  The 
Councils  of  which  we  hear  are  a  mere  fraction  of  the 
Councils  which  were  always  being  held.  They  met 
several  times  a  year,  partly  for  business,  partly  to  talk 
things  over,  and  rather  to  make  a  common  mind  on 
questions  than  to  '  decide  '  them. 

In  this  way  Councils  were  more  like  a  conference  of 
learned  men,  but  the  bishops  did  not  meet  as  learned 
men,  but  as  bishops,  that  is,  as  men  responsible  for  the 
care  and  teaching  of  common  and  simple  people.  In 
those  days,  as  now,  there  were  many  theories,  theories 
that  were  clever  and  theories  that  were  ingenious. 
Then  as  now,  there  were  some  bishops — for  bishops  are 
amazingly  like  other  people — who  were  pleased  with 
new  ideas,  and  many  who  were  suspicious  of  them. 
The  Church  as  a  Church  was  not  concerned  with  clever- 
nesses and  ingenuities.  It  was  very  much  concerned 
to  find  what  real  sohd  meaning  lay  at  the  back  of  them, 
and  that  trenchant  determination  to  face  out  the  con- 
sequences and  imphcations  contained  in  a  theory  was 
the  great  distinction  of  early  ages. 

As  we  begin  to  reach  a  soHd  meaning,  two  questions 
will  come  up.    First,  is  there  any  real  usefulness  about 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  281 


this  meaning,  helpful  to  common  people  ?  That  is 
not  a  question  we  shall  expect  to  *  decide '  off-hand, 
for  that  only  is  proved  useful  which  in  practice  we  can 
use.  But,  secondly,  though  a  theory  may  look  ever  so 
plausible  and  ever  so  simple,  is  it  Christian  ?  That  is 
a  very  solemn  question.  Those  who  cannot  see  that 
Christianity  has  any  meaning  of  its  own,  or  is  other  than 
a  label  which  one  may  attach  to  anything  one  chooses, 
will  of  course  see  no  meaning  in  the  question.  For 
those  to  whom  Christianity  is  a  real  gospel,  it  is  a 
question  which  must  always  be  faced.  It  is,  however, 
not  a  question  to  which  any  one  should  be  in  a  hurry 
to  force  an  answer,  nor  which  can  be  answered,  until  he 
is  quite  sure  he  has  got  to  the  bottom  of  what  is  meant. 

Again,  on  the  one  hand,  a  theory  or  view  unchristian 
in  its  consequences  may  be  held  or  put  forward  only 
because  its  inconsistency  is  not  realised.  That  is  a 
thing  we  all  do  often  enough  ;  it  will  be  a  weakness  or 
a  danger,  but  it  is  not  more  than  that.  On  the  other 
hand,  an  unchristian  view  may  be  held  definitely  and 
with  a  full  consciousness  of  its  consequences,  because 
those  who  hold  it  have  committed  themselves  to  another 
gospel.  If,  for  instance,  one  group  of  men  believes  that 
Christianity  is  a  Gospel  of  how  God  became  man  and 
redeemed  us,  and  another  group  seriously  and  con- 
tinuously insists  that  this  neither  did  nor  could  happen, 
and  that  the  true  Gospel  is  only  an  ethical  teaching 
about  love  or  about  what  God  is  like,  plainly  the  first 
group  must  hold  that  the  second  group  has  ceased  to 
be  Christian.  Some  time  or  other  a  decision  must  be 
come  to.  I  am  pointing  out  that  when  that  decision 
has  to  be  made,  which  of  the  two  groups  is  the 
majority  and  which  is  the  minority  will  make  no  differ- 
ence at  all. 


282    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


I  quite  admit  that  Councils,  even  very  big  Councils, 
often  went  wrong,  for  they  were  Councils  of  men. 
Sometimes  they  were  too  impatient  to  get  to  the  bottom 
of  a  theory  ;  sometimes  they  had  too  many  theories 
of  their  own,  or  were  overpersuaded  by  those  who  had, 
but  their  decisions  were  not  final ;  they  were  steps  in 
the  working  out  of  a  question.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  had  been  discussed  for  a  century ;  at  Nicea 
it  was  *  decided.'  Whereupon  the  discussion  went  on 
again  for  fifty-six  years.  Only  after  working  the  matter 
through  from  end  to  end,  trying  every  possible  hypo- 
thesis and  every  possible  phrase,  men  were  forced  back 
to  the  conclusion  and  to  the  phraseology  from  which 
they  had  so  long  shrunk.  The  QEcumenical  authority 
of  a  Council  is  not,  like  the  authority  of  parliament, 
inherent  in  its  constitution ;  it  depends  on  the  accept- 
ance of  its  results  by  the  Christian  consciousness  of 
the  Church. 

The  authority  of  the  Creeds,  therefore,  rests  on  ex- 
perience. The  modern  religious  mind  is  full  of  '  ex- 
perience,' but  the  word  is  being  used  in  two  different 
ways.  I  have  urged  that  the  modern  use  was  full  of 
dangers  which  were  not  realised,  but  I  have  no  desire  to 
reject  experience.  I  maintain  that  no  religion  huilt  out 
of  experience  can  be  a  gospel,  but  I  contend  also  that 
whatever  is  a  gospel  must  meet  experience.  If  we  com- 
pare the  Church's  use  of  experience  with  the  modem 
use,  we  shall  find  points  of  profound  significance  for 
which  I  would  ask  the  most  earnest  attention. 

In  all  our  material  Hfe  and  science  we  assume  that 
our  experience  is  an  experience  of  real  things  and  forces, 
which  it  is  most  important  that  we  should  observe 
correctly,  for  all  our  fancies  of  what  is  around  us  will 
be  judged  by  the  truth,  and  any  error  may  bring  on 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  283 


us  the  most  unwelcome  results.  The  tendency  of  our 
modern  religious  thinking  is  to  treat  religious  ex- 
perience as  if  it  were  itself  the  reality,  its  own  standard 
and  its  own  judge.  Then  experience  ceases  to  be  an 
experience  of  something  ;  it  becomes  just  an  experience 
of  an  experience.  Religious  experience  is  unquestion- 
ably a  nice  state,  therefore  anything  that  makes  us 
feel  nice  is  religion. 

The  material  things  of  life  act  round  us  externally, 
but  spiritual  things  are  spiritually  discerned.  In 
religion,  we  are  not  looking  at  something  in  a  test-tube, 
but  at  something  within  us.  Even  in  material  affairs, 
experience  or  observation  is  a  very  difficult  matter 
to  handle.  If  a  man  has  no  theories,  he  will  not  know 
what  he  is  looking  at ;  but  if  a  man  has  theories,  he  is 
apt  to  imagine  he  sees,  anyhow  he  is  apt  to  see  only,  the 
things  he  expected  or  wanted  to  see.  If  this  is  true 
even  of  things  outside  ourselves,  it  is  much  more  true 
when  the  object  of  experience  or  observation  is  our 
own  feelings. 

Again,  religion  is  of  necessity  selective.  Some 
heathen  have  taken  all  experience  as  the  ground  of 
religion,  and  much  of  their  religion  was  very  horrible, 
because  a  good  deal  of  experience  is  very  horrible. 
But  if  we  make  up  our  minds  that  religion  is  good, 
then  we  shall  only  include  good  experiences  as  re- 
ligious experiences,  but  we  are  our  own  judges  of  which 
experiences  we  count  good  and  therefore  religious. 
When  we  appeal  to  our  experience  as  a  proof,  we 
ourselves  select  the  evidence. 

The  Church  appeals  to  experience  and  personal 
experience,  bidding  us  *  Taste  and  see  that  the  Lord  is 
gracious,'  but  with  a  full  sense  and  many  warnings  of 
the  hmitations  of  personal  experience,  of  how  easily  and 


284    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


in  how  many  ways  it  may  fail  us,  of  how  long  we  may 
have  to  wait  for  the  fulness  of  its  coming.  Experience, 
if  it  is  ultimately  of  things,  is  directly  and  in  itself  only 
of  effects.  In  itself,  therefore,  it  is  individual,  but  the 
Gospel  is  one  and  common  to  all,  a  bond  of  unity,  not 
accommodated  to  perpetuate  our  separation.  It  was 
not  formed,  it  cannot  be  judged,  it  cannot  even  be 
apprehended  as  a  whole,  by  individual  experience. 

For  this  reason  the  Church  has  a  profound,  sometimes 
it  looks  like  an  exaggerated,  suspicion  of  personal 
ability,  for  exceptional  power  makes  a  man  a  very 
bad  witness  to  the  common  and  simple  truth.  The 
professors  of  ethics  have  much  to  say  about  love  well 
worth  listening  to,  but  we  shall  draw  our  evidence 
and  facts  best  from  mothers  and  little  children  who  do 
love,  but  who  do  not  attend  ethical  lectures.  Un- 
doubtedly there  is  a  great  deal  which  abihty  and  only 
ability  could  do,  but  ability  is  not  the  true  judge  of 
its  own  usefulness.  The  work  it  does  is  useful  if  it 
can  be  used.  The  work  of  the  clever  men  was  liable 
to  be  judged,  first,  by  bishops  who  as  pastors  would 
have  to  use  it.  It  must  in  the  end  be  judged  by 
common  people  to  whom  it  must  be  useful. 

'  But  we  want  to  have  the  Nicene  theology  re- 
expressed  in  modern  terms,  accordant  with  the  forms 
and  categories  of  modern  thought.'  I  am  not  sure 
what  this  means.  Taking  it  simply,  it  is  a  most 
reasonable  and  proper  desire.  All  set  forms  are 
apt  to  lose  force  through  familiarity,  and  require 
de-polarising.  But  I  have  been  under  the  impression 
that  our  theology  and  history  tutors  already  spend 
a  certain  proportion  of  their  time  in  this  very  work 
of  exposition,  and  I  assume  they  do  so  in  reasonably 
modem  English.    I  have  imagined  that  our  students 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  285 


also  may  have  tried  to  express  the  Nicene  theology  in 
essays. 

The  demand  then  is  somewhat  puzzling.  What  is 
the  precise  object  of  asking  for  a  re-statement  of  Nicene 
theology,  when  such  re-statements  can  notoriously  be 
heard  in  a  multitude  of  lecture  rooms  or  bought  for  a 
few  shillings — or  even  sixpence — at  any  theological 
book-shop,  unless  after  all  it  is  a  demand  for  a  re-state- 
ment, not  of  the  Nicene,  but  of  another  and  different, 
theology.  To  that  also  there  are  no  objections  worth 
making,  since,  with  or  without  objection,  statements 
of  new  and  different  theologies,  all  different,  are  being 
put  out  about  once  a  week  all  through  the  publishing 
season.  But  if  intellectual  honesty  and  clearness  of 
mind  are  worth  anything,  there  are  very  grave  ob- 
jections indeed  to  putting  out  a  different  theology  and 
calling  it  a  *  re-expression  '  of  the  Nicene.  The  phrase 
*  re-expressing '  in  this  sense  is  very  modern,  but  the 
thing  itself  is  very  old  indeed,  and  a  new  coat  of  paint 
and  a  new  nameplate  do  not  make  it  a  bit  less  unlovely. 

If,  however,  the  proposal  is  quite  honest,  but  it  is 
desired  that  we  should  have  a  new  formula  in  more 
modem  philosophical  forms, — wondering  if  this  is  seri- 
ously proposed — I  can  only  ask  which  modern  forms  ? 
Shall  we  go  to  Oxford  or  Cambridge,  Scotland,  America 
or  Germany  ?  Are  we  to  use  the  categories  of  Idealism 
or  Neo-Realism,  of  the  Pragmatists  or  Naturalists  or 
Psychologists  ?  Or  shall  we  call  a  central  congress, 
representative  of  all  schools  ?  When  we  get  our  new 
phraseology,  how  long  wiU  it  stop  modern  ?  I  fancy 
we  shall  need  a  new  congress  every  five  years,  and  I 
doubt  if  we  shall  get  one  to  agree  before  the  next  is 
due.  And  what,  finally,  becomes  of  our  modern  ob- 
jection to  importing  metaphysics  ? 


286    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


If  this  is  too  palpably  absurd,  does  the  proposal  mean 
that  we  shall  drop  our  common  Creeds  altogether  ? 
*  We  do  not  want  Nicaea  ;  we  have  the  Scriptures,  and 
from  that  each  man  draws  his  faith.'  In  some  ways 
this  is  quite  obvious.  If  any  man  is  asked,  or  asks 
himself,  '  What  is  it  that  you  believe  ?  '  he  will  reply 
by  a  summary  statement  of  the  principal  points.  But 
that  statement  will  be,  first,  confined  to  the  points 
believed  to  be  in  the  questioner's  mind  ;  secondly,  to 
what  was  at  the  moment  present  to  the  mind  of  him 
who  answered.  Point  is  met  by  point,  and  one  mind 
by  another.  This  is  as  it  should  be,  but  it  is  not  all. 
Not  every  question  turns  on  Christianity  as  a  whole, 
nor  is  the  whole  at  every  moment  present  to  every 
answerer's  mind,  yet  Christianity  is  a  whole  gospel, 
and  that  we  may  keep  its  wholeness  before  our  minds, 
here  is  a  statement  drawn  up  very  deliberately,  after 
long  experience  of  many  questions,  ratified  by  ages 
of  the  most  diverse  experiences. 

A  writer  writes  a  book,  trying  to  grapple  with  the 
whole  of  a  complex  question.  Everybody,  who  thinks 
the  book  worth  talking  about  or  writing  about,  will 
give  their  summary  statements  of  what  they  take  to 
be  its  main  proposals.  If  the  book  was  worth  it,  the 
author  might  draw  up  his  own  authorised  summary. 
That  would  not  take  the  place  of  the  book  itself.  He 
would  be  saying — '  These  are  the  main  points.  Read 
the  Great  Book  itself  that  you  may  see  their  signi- 
ficance.' Of  course  authors  do  not  do  this,  first, 
because  they  have  no  right  to  suppose  their  books  are 
worth  making  into  a  Creed ;  but  then  Scripture  is. 
Secondly,  however,  they  do  not  do  it,  because  they 
cannot.  Supposing  that  the  book  had  a  wonderful 
and  deep  significance  that  would  make  it  worth  while. 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  287 


it  would  require  long  pondering,  long  controversies, 
long  experience,  before  that  significance  would  begin 
to  crystallise  itself  and  stand  out  clear.  Possibly,  if 
the  book  is  worth  anything,  the  writer  may  know  some- 
thing of  what  he  meant  by  it — in  ten  or  twenty  years — 
when  everybody  else  has  forgotten  it,  and  if  he  hasn't 
forgotten  it  himself.  But  Scripture  is  not  a  book 
which  has  been  forgotten. 

Once  upon  a  time  the  Church  began  with  a  teaching, 
with  the  Scriptures,  with  a  very  simple  belief.  Pre- 
sently she  found  what  a  multitude  of  questions  life, 
experience,  the  world,  were  demanding  that  that  belief 
should  answer.  After  many  years  of  thought,  by  much 
effort,  through  many  blunders,  the  Church  worked  her 
way  to  clear  issues  and  finally  to  a  clear  answer.  Are 
we  now  to  go  back  to  the  simple  and  primitive  ?  Is  it 
necessary  to  remind  the  twentieth  century  of  a  process 
called  Evolution,  and  that,  even  if  it  were  possible  for 
men  to  go  back  to  the  primitive,  it  would  only  mean 
that  they  would  have  to  work  through  much  the  same 
process  again  ?  Shall  we  go  back  also  to  primitive  law, 
to  primitive  politics  ?  Have  we  not  yet  unlearned  the 
fallacy  of  Rousseau  and  his  *  primitive  savage  '  ?  The 
primitive  developed  because  it  had  to  develop,  and 
going  back  is  not  progress. 

After  all,  the  history  of  the  Church  may  be,  as  a  dis- 
tinguished writer  holds,  little  better  than  a  history  of 
human  error.  But  what  of  ourselves  ?  We  have  an 
immense  behef  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  guiding  us. 
Exactly,  and  the  early  Church  had  exactly  the 
same  belief.  If  they  were  wrong,  what  ground  have 
we  for  our  own  confidence  ?  Is  the  twenty-first 
century  to  sweep  out  our  efforts  also  with  the  same 
contempt  ? 


288    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


We  do  then  appeal  to  the  authority  of  the  past,  of 
ancient  Councils  and  ancient  Creeds,  but  with  no 
assumption  that  a  particular  group  of  clever  men  a  long 
time  ago  possessed  some  peculiar  gift  of  infallible 
inspiration.  If  there  is  no  real  basis  in  Christianity  at 
all,  then  no  doubt  there  is  no  object  in  retaining  old 
statements  thereof,  nor  apparently  in  constructing  new 
ones.  If,  however,  Christianity  has  a  real  basis  and 
substance,  then  we  are  suspicious  of  those  proposals  of 
modernised  statements  just  on  that  very  ground,  that  it 
seems  to  imply  a  peculiar  gift  of  infallible  inspiration 
possessed  by  clever  men  now,  who  understand  what  no 
one  before  them  understood.  We  are  suspicious  of 
clever  men  just  because  we  think  so  much  of  common 
men.  It  is  against  this  notion  of  infallible  inspirations 
and  *  experiences  '  of  one  age  or  of  another  that  we, 
Anglicans  in  particular,  appeal  to  the  common  inspira- 
tion and  experience  of  all.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  not  the 
Spirit  of  the  twentieth  century,  but  the  Eternal  Spirit. 
We  vindicate  His  work  in  the  past,  that  we  may  have 
faith  in  Him  for  the  present ;  we  protest  against  *  going 
back '  because  we  have  through  Him  a  hope  of  going 
forward. 

But  the  meaning  of  the  authority  of  common  experi- 
ence, of  the  experience  of  the  past,  can  only  be  under- 
stood if  we  realise  the  kind  of  questions  to  which  it  was 
applied.  Undoubtedly  there  are  many  questions  bear- 
ing upon  new  problems,  practical  and  intellectual,  of 
politics  or  social  organisation,  of  natural  sciences  or  new 
phases  of  thought,  which  to  the  common  man  seem  mere 
subtleties,  any  of  which  may  nevertheless  be  important ; 
some  may  be  of  great  importance.  To  them  also  the 
Gospel  has  its  message,  its  help,  its  applications ;  but 
since  they  are  modern  and  difficult,  since  these  applica- 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  289 


tions  and  inferences  require  much  delicate  thinking  over, 
it  is  equally  useless  and  mischievous  to  fetter  the  efforts 
of  thinkers  by  '  authority  '  which  could  only  be  the 
authority  of  other  thinkers. 

When,  however,  we  come  to  the  simple  question,  what 
is  the  Christianity  which  is  being  applied,  which  is  to 
provide  an  answer,  it  is  the  Christianity  by  which  we  all 
live,  simple  and  common  as  well  as  clever  and  learned. 
Then  the  Church  forced  her  way — not  without  much 
trouble — to  a  simple  answer.  I  have  given  that 
worked  out  in  the  fourth  century.  As  Christians  we 
believe  in  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible.  If  we 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  this  is  not  an  alternative  or 
additional  belief.  We  believe  in  Him  as  our  Lord, 
because  He  is  the  Only  Begotten  Son  of  God,  Begotten 
of  the  Father  before  all  ages,  God  from  God,  Light  from 
Light,  Begotten  not  Created,  being  of  one  Substance 
with  the  Father,  through  Whom  all  things  were  made. 

A  similar  simplicity  forced  its  way  through  the  con- 
troversies of  the  fifth  century.  *  What  God  assumed 
that  He  redeemed.'  If  God  took  to  Himself  only  the 
limited  and  exclusive  personahty  of  one,  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  what  is  this  Super-man  of  Nestorius  to  us 
common  people  ?  What  is  the  good  of  admiration  ? 
Or,  have  we  also  caught  an  ambition  to  be  Super-men  ? 
What  are  the  beauty  of  teaching  and  the  wonder  of  a 
life  to  those  who  know  only  too  bitterly  how  little  they 
can  follow  the  one  or  imitate  the  other  ?  Some  of  us 
can  manage  an  aeroplane,  but  who  are  we  to  scale  moral 
heavens,  any  more  than  the  physical  ?  If  Christianity 
can  tell  us  how  God  took  to  Himself  that  common 
human  nature  which  we  all  share,  but  which  is  whole 
to  none  of  us,  as  only  God  could  take  ;  can  tell  us  how 


290    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


God  made  out  of  that  a  redeemed  humanity,  as  only 
God  could  make,  into  which  we  can  enter,  this  is  a 
Gospel,  and  it  is  the  Christian  Gospel.  There  is  no 
other. 

'  But  the  fifth  century  Councils  did  lay  down  decisions 
about  Nature  and  Personality,  which  are  full,  the  one 
of  metaphysical,  and  the  other  of  psychological,  en- 
tanglements.' Certainly  they  are,  but  concerning  both, 
the  Council  knew  and  meant  exactly  what  the  collier's 
wife  knows  and  means,  viz.  that  the  natures  of  bread 
and  cheese  and  of  the  human  body  are  different,  that 
her  own  personality,  that  of  her  old  man,  and  those  of 
the  kiddies  are  separate  personalities,  demanding, 
hungrily  demanding,  separate  apportionments  of  bread 
and  cheese.  If  I  have  been  unduly  sarcastic  over  pro- 
fessors and  the  learned,  let  me  here  apologise  and  with- 
draw. There  are  professors  who  have  helped  me 
mightily  to  understand  colliers  and  mothers  and  little 
children,  what  they  were  and  what  they  actually  did 
mean.  To  them  I  am  unspeakably  grateful.  It  is  only 
when  professors  cease  to  be  interested  in  such  people, 
want  to  explain  to  me  some  new  kind  of  world  and 
meaning  which  common  people  do  not  live  in  or  have, 
that  the  professors  cease  to  interest  me. 

The  Council  said  and  meant  that  God  was  and  re- 
mained God,  in  His  own  nature,  and  that  man  was  and 
remains  man  in  his.  They  said  that  this  human  nature 
had  been  brought  into  union  with  God,  not  in  the  frag- 
mentary form  which  constitutes  the  peculiarity  of  a 
human  person,  but  in  the  inclusive  personaHty  of  the 
Divine  Logos. 

But  if  even  this  is  too  difficult,  let  us  be  cheered. 
Though  the  Council  asserted  it,  they  refused  to  put  it 
or  anything  else  into  the  Creed.    They  said  it  was  there 


CREEDS  AND  AUTHORITY  291 


already.  They  had  said  no  more  than  that  it  was  the 
One  Lord,  the  Only  Begotten  Son  of  God,  Who  for  us 
men,  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  from  heaven,  and 
took  flesh  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
was  made  man,  and  was  crucified  also  for  us  under 
Pontius  Pilate.  He  suffered,  and  was  buried,  and  the 
third  day  He  arose  again  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father.  And  He  shall  come  again  with  glory  to 
judge  both  the  hving  and  the  dead,  Whose  kingdom 
shall  have  no  end. 

Yet  even  if  we  have  thus  learnt  that  there  is  in  God 
salvation,  which  by  God  has  been  made  a  salvation  for 
us,  plain  is  it  that  by  no  effort  of  our  own  can  we  come 
to  it,  since  it  is  impossible  for  the  self  by  itself  to  escape 
from  self.  We  individuals  can  be  drawn  into  a  re- 
deemed humanity  in  God  only  by  the  operation,  the 
sending  forth  of  the  power,  of  God  Who  is  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Lord  and  Life-giver,  Who  proceedeth  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  Who  with  the  Father  and  the 
Son  together  is  worshipped  and  glorified, — one  God, 
blessed  for  ever.  Here  is  a  gospel.  Here  is  hope  for 
men,  and  hope  calleth  to  faith,  and  faith  is  the  stay  of 
love,  wherein  all  are  perfected. 

Is  this  the  faith  in  God  we  hold  to  and  this  the  road 
to  it  ?  Do  we  thus  beHeve  in  God  Who  made  us, 
because  the  Son  of  God  hath  redeemed  us  and  the  Spirit 
of  God  giveth  us  life  ?  If  not,  let  us  say  so  frankly  and 
let  us  say  what  new  gospel — if  any — the  twentieth 
century  has  produced.  But  the  rejection  of  the  gospel 
we  have  been  taught,  the  substitution  of  another,  the 
reasons  which  justify  that  procedure,  open  a  different 
issue  ;  they  should  not  be  carried  through  under  cover 
of  objections  to  a  form  of  statement. 


292     THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


Meanwhile  all  down  the  centuries  the  music  of 
these  words  has  rung.  The  long  road  is  littered  with 
the  broken  remnants  of  Modernisms,  abandoned,  for- 
gotten, earth-buried,  moulded,  dust-covered.  They 
served  their  day,  strutting  in  the  sun  ;  *  the  zeit-geist 
breathed  upon  them  and  they  are  gone,'  for  there  is 
nothing  so  very  old-fashioned  as  the  desire  to  be  up-to- 
date.  If  these  words  have  survived  them  all,  is  it  not 
that  they  never  were  part  of  a  temporary  system  of 
technical  thinking,  but  merely  the  trenchant  ex- 
pression of  a  common  fact  in  the  simplest  and  most 
common  language,  chosen  for  that  very  reason,  ratified 
by  the  common  sense  of  common  people  of  the  most 
varied  ways  of  thinking  ?  For  what  was  being  stated 
was  not  a  form  of  thinking,  but  a  fact  to  be  thought 
about.  Thus  we  believe  of  Him  in  Whom  we  believe 
that  faith  and  worship  may  be  one. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

ANGLICANISM. 

If  we  were  dealing  with  a  question  primarily  of  abstract 
theology,  my  case  would  be  now  complete.  So  far 
as  my  power  to  put  it  is  concerned, — here  is  the  Cathohc, 
and  here  is  the  Protestant,  principle.  Here  are  the 
places  which  each  would  seem  to  occupy  in  the  com- 
pleteness of  religious  life.  This  and  this  would  seem  to 
be  the  result  of  trying  to  frame  a  religious  life  upon 
either  one  of  them  taken  more  or  less  independently 
— I  say  '  more  or  less because  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  to  get  a  religious  life  out  of  either  without 
some  help  from  the  other.  Just  these  are  actually  the 
results  we  do  find,  more  or  less  according  to  the  degree 
in  which  they  have  been  independently  followed. 

As  an  observer  I  have  done  my  best  to  get  at  the 
facts,  and  as  a  thinker  I  have  tried  to  understand  and 
explain  them.  In  the  practical  religious  world  I  have 
neither  status  nor  influence  ;  it  would  be,  therefore, 
absurd  for  me  to  put  forward  proposals  of  the  kind 
which  belong  to  practical  ecclesiastical  politics.  If  we 
can  get  any  clear  comprehension  of  what  we  want  to 
reach,  really  able  men,  our  chosen  leaders,  will  soon 
make  up  the  road  there. 

Some  aspects  of  practical  politics  even  the  most 
theoretically  minded  person  must   face.     I  have 


294    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


maintained  that  we  cannot  make  up  any  real  unity 
between  Catholics  and  Protestants  until  we  have  found 
what  is  the  true  meaning,  and  thence  what  reconcilia- 
tion there  can  be,  of  the  Cathohc  and  Protestant  prin- 
ciples. When  we  have  found  a  reconciliation  of  these 
sitting  in  our  study,  realised  it  on  our  knees  in  prayer, 
tested  it  on  our  feet  at  work,  we  shall  still  have  to 
make  it  an  actuality  in  the  uniting  of  men  and  systems. 

Seeking  an  actual  unity,  we  cannot  altogether  shirk 
considering  the  actual  condition  of  the  systems  we  are 
to  bring  together.  Of  the  Protestant  or  Non-Con- 
formist bodies  I  shall  say  nothing  whatever.  I  speak 
to  them  ;  it  would  ill  become  me  to  speak  of  them, 
otherwise  than  I  am  forced  to  do  in  the  course  of  my 
analysis.  It  would  be  presumptuous  for  me  as  an 
outsider  either  to  criticise  or  praise  that  of  which  I 
have  no  thorough  knowledge.  What  then  are  the 
Catholic  men,  bodies,  or  systems,  to  be  actually  con- 
sidered ?  In  the  first  place,  and  in  the  last  place,  we 
shall  have  to  think  of  the  great  and  wonderful  organisa- 
tions of  the  Roman  and  Greek  Churches,  the  former  of 
which  is  in  especial  the  largest,  the  most  widely  spread, 
the  most  closely  knit,  in  many  ways  the  most  effective, 
of  aU  rehgious  bodies.  I  say  we  must,  and  we  ought  to, 
think  of  them  first.  It  is  necessary  to  say  it  because 
we  are  so  particularly  apt  to  forget  them — forgetfulness 
being  a  comfortable  refuge  from  hopelessness.  Yet 
it  will  be  a  poor  reunion  which  leaves  two-thirds  of 
professed  Christians  out  of  count. 

Our  inabihty  to  solve  a  problem  is  not  a  sound  reason 
for  forgetting  it,  but  it  may  be  quite  a  sound  reason  for 
passing  on  to  something  more  manageable.  I  may 
hope  that  my  effort  will  suggest  something  to  those 
Catholics  who  are  not  of  our  communion,  but  I  have  no 


ANGLICANISM 


295 


justification  for  expecting  so  much.  I  leave  this  side 
to  men  of  greater  ability,  weight,  insight.  Reunion 
must  deal  ultimately  with  the  Roman  difficulty,  but, 
although  we  must  have  that  in  mind  from  the  first,  it 
does  not  seem  to  me  we  can  deal  with  it  first. 

Catholicism,  therefore,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned, 
must  mean  Anglicanism,  and  here  I  am  in  a  great 
difficulty.  If  I  confess  the  weakness  of  Anglicanism, 
the  need  of  help  in  which  it  stands,  I  may  be  preparing 
the  way  for  surrender,  but  obviously  I  ought  to  be 
speaking  to  my  own  people.  There  is  no  use  asking 
others  for  an  assistance  to  the  rendering  of  which  our 
own  obstinacy  is  the  only  barrier.  If  I  speak  primarily 
to  Non-Conformists,  I  do  so  primarily  because  of  the 
help  I  believe  the  Church  has  to  give  to  them.  I  confess 
our  weaknesses,  first,  because  I  know  and  I  want  to 
make  plain  that  the  help  is  not  all  on  one  side,  but, 
secondly,  because  I  think  I  can  show  that  those  weak- 
nesses, while  they  seem  to  make  our  helpfulness 
doubtful,  do  in  fact  make  it  really  possible,  a  helpful- 
ness which  really  can  be  used. 

There  are,  however,  certain  points  on  which  I  do  not 
think  it  worth  while  to  say  anything  at  length.  It  may 
be  observed  that  I  have  nowhere  made  any  allusion  to 
the  difficulty  of  Establishment,  which  many  think  the 
most  burning  topic  of  all.  I  have  deliberately  omitted 
it,  in  the  first  place,  because  all  experience  shows  that 
its  influence  at  least  upon  the  question  of  reunion, 
is  very  much  less  than  is  supposed.  Disestablishment 
might  effect  the  machinery  for  solving  our  differences — 
though  it  is  very  doubtful  if  it  would — it  wiU  not  affect 
the  differences  themselves  by  one  iota.  In  England  the 
'  Church '  is  established,  and  this  fact  weighs  heavily 
upon  our  mind.    In  Ireland,  America,  Scotland  and 


296    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


the  Colonies,  the  '  Church '  is  not  estabHshed,  and  the 
relations  between  the  different  bodies  are  exactly  what 
they  are  here.  In  the  second  place,  I  am  not  anxious 
to  discuss  the  question  because,  though  no  doubt  it  has 
its  religious  side,  it  is  primarily  a  political  question. 

At  present  we  are  in  the  position  of  rival  sects.  Our 
rivalry  is  the  direct  cause  of  the  anomalous  form  of 
establishment.  No  doubt  it  makes  any  form  of  esta- 
blishment of  one  body  an  anomaly.  But  then  the 
rivalry  itself  is  an  anomaly.  While  we  are  in  this 
position,  the  practical  question  can  only  appear  as  a 
quarrel,  in  which  one  rival  by  various  political  com- 
binations forces  the  other  to  submit  or  to  accept  its 
own  view  of  what  is  just,  what  is  right,  what  is  for 
the  good  of  religion  or  of  the  nation.  If  we  were 
agreed  on  the  religious  question,  we  could  solve  the 
practical  question  together  very  easily.  But  with  all 
the  multitude  of  side  issues  involved,  I  do  not  see 
how  we  can  expect  to  get  a  reasonable  solution,  one 
which  will  not  leave  us  full  of  the  anger  and  bitterness 
in  which  it  was  wrought,  till  we  have  learnt  more  of 
one  another's  aims,  ideals,  motives,  in  other  directions. 
I  shall  not,  therefore,  discuss  it  further. 

I  also  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  do  more  than 
to  allude  to  the  extraordinary  idea  that  it  is  somehow 
the  '  gentlemanly  thing  '  to  be  an  Episcopalian,  and 
that  a  moderate — generally  very  moderate — Church 
observance  is  connected  with  one's  title  to  social 
superiority.  Nor  need  I  discuss  that  view  of  Epis- 
copacy which  is  sometimes  described  as  *  Prelacy.' 
However  irritating  these  side  issues  may  be,  and 
seriously  as  the  Church  has  suffered  from  them,  I 
ought  not  to  assume  or  even  suggest  that  serious  and 
thoughtful  men,  seeking  what  is  of  religious  truth  and 


ANGLICANISM 


297 


spiritual  need,  would  allow  themselves  to  be  affected 
by  what  were  so  palpably  adventitious  abuses  and 
corruptions,  the  fruits  of  the  position  in  which  we  i&nd 
ourselves. 

The  weaknesses  we  do  need  to  face  seriously  are 
those  belonging  to  our  spiritual  and  religious  efficiency. 
I  am  afraid  our  weaknesses  here  are  all  the  more  a 
stumbUng-block  because  they  occur  in  just  those 
directions  which  Non-Conformists  most  appreciate. 
Let  us  see  what  others  can  say  about  us,  how  we  may 
look  to  them  at  our  worst.  '  The  Presbyterians  have 
a  very  effective  system  of  government.  A  great  leader 
among  them  once  described  the  Church  of  England  as 
*'  the  worst  governed  body  in  Christendom."  They 
have  a  marvellous  system  of  ministerial  training.  I 
suppose  it  would  be  generally  agreed  that  the  Anglican 
clergy  are  less  taught,  and  make  less  serious  study  of, 
their  business,  not  merely  than  any  other  ministry,  but 
than  any  professional  class  in  existence.  The  Non- 
Conformist  body  is  full  of  energy,  zeal,  readiness  to 
organise  activity  of  all  kinds ;  to  them  we  seem  in- 
credibly wooden  and  lifeless.  Only  our  fund  of  quiet 
self-satisfaction  prevents  our  knowing  that  the  Non- 
Conformists  have  far  outstripped  us  in  almost  every 
field  where  new  work  was  wanted.  Some  bodies  have 
learning,  some  have  fire,  some  have  organisation ; 
the  only  distinctive  gift  of  Anglicanism  is  its 
"  starch."  ' 

'  This  is  not  the  worst.  Certainly  we  cannot  lay 
claim  in  these  directions.  If  we  have  anything  to  give, 
it  is  doctrinal,  sacramental,  "  Catholic."  But  this  last 
descriptive  word — which  sums  the  other  two — is  in  all 
common  usage  given  only  to  the  Romans,  and  that 
common  usage  is  very  significant.    Practical  men  can 


298    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


only  deal  with  practical  forces,  and  in  practice  the 
Church  is  not  Catholic.  The  larger  mass  of  the  clergy, 
and  a  considerable  band  of  laity,  important  rather  by 
their  energy  than  by  mere  numbers,  are  "  High  Church  " 
in  a  somewhat  narrow  and  negative  sense.  They  have 
a  very  strong  conviction  that  Episcopacy  alone  is 
right  and  of  divine  foundation  ;  everybody  else  is  in 
schism.  But  many  clergy  and  vast  numbers  of  the 
laity  are  openly  or  at  heart  Undenominational.  They 
prefer  the  Church  from  habit,  or  for  reasons  political 
or  social,  but  they  have  no  belief  in  it  otherwise.' 

*  CathoHcism  in  the  sense  in  which  I  have  used  the 
term — that  is,  as  a  primarily  sacramental  faith  in  a 
real  and  objective  gift  of  a  Divine  Presence  to  worship 
— is  not  the  behef  of  the  Church.  It  is  the  belief  of 
a  small  section  within  it,  which  has  only  just  won  its 
way  to  a  bare  toleration.  It  has  been  and  is  flatly 
repudiated  by  the  majority  of  the  Church's  leaders  ;  it 
is  bitterly  disliked  and  suspected  by  the  larger  mass  of 
the  laity,  to  whom  its  very  meaning  and  aims  are 
scarcely  known.  "  Church  worship  "  is  not  in  practice 
distinguished  from  Non-Conformist  worship  by  its 
essentially  sacramental  character,  but  by  its  use  of 
"book  prayers,"  short  sermons,  and  the  rigidly  exclusive 
use  of  an  ordained  ministry.  Where  the  Church  of 
England  has  gone  abroad  into  America  and  into  the 
Colonies,  these  have  continued  to  be  her  hall-mark. 
No  doubt  the  Church  endeavours  to  provide  administra- 
tions of  the  sacrament  for  those  who  desire  it,  but 
wherever  in  a  Bush  township  you  enquire  for  the  Roman 
Church,  you  will  be  told  at  once  when  there  will  be  a 
"  mass."  If  you  enquire  for  the  "  Church  of  England," 
you  will  be  told  the  time  of  Matins,  or  perhaps  Even- 
song.' 


ANGLICANISM 


299 


Here  then  are  the  charges  against  us — charges  which 
many  bring  openly  and  contemptuously,  which  many 
who  have  no  desire  to  be  contemptuous  yet  believe  to 
be  true.  What  are  we  Churchmen  to  say  to  them  ? 
We  might  very  reasonably  say  that  they  were  ex- 
aggerated, and  that  things  were  not  as  bad  with  us  as 
all  that.    We  might  also  say  that,  if  it  comes  to  making 

criticisms,  we  in  our  turn  .    But  then  what  is  the 

good  ?  The  charges  are  only  too  true,  why  should 
we  cavil  over  the  exact  measure  of  their  truth  ?  We 
confess  our  failures  before  God  ;  we  lament  over  them 
among  ourselves  ;  shall  we  begin  extenuating  them 
before  other  men  ?  We  are  asked  if  we  can  give  Non- 
Conformity  any  help.  It  is  plain  our  critics  think  we 
have  none  to  give.  Is  not  that  the  simple  truth,  and 
yet  is  it  not  the  very  nature  of  the  help  which  we  believe 
exists  for  them  that  it  is  a  help  which  it  is  not  of  us 
nor  of  men,  but  of  God,  to  give  ? 

Suppose,  however,  we  change  the  form  of  our  ques- 
tion. Has  the  Church  of  England  any  help  to  give  ? 
That  is  a  very  different  question,  for  the  Church  is  a 
very  different  thing  from  Churchmen.  The  difference 
wants  some  consideration.  Some  of  my  readers  may 
be  aware  that  in  India  or  China  it  is  not  unknown 
for  a  heathen  father,  who  fears  his  son  may  turn 
Christian,  to  send  the  boy  to  study  in  Europe.  Pro- 
bably he  will  lose  any  religious  belief  he  has  got — I 
believe  we  have  known  this  kind  of  thing  among  our- 
selves, but  at  least  he  will  not  be  a  Christian.  This 
ought  to  cause  us  great  searchings  of  heart.  On  the 
one  hand  Christianity  ought  not  to  be  judged  purely 
from  Christians,  least  of  all  from  nominal  Christians. 
On  the  other  hand  Christianity  cannot  entirely  disown 
responsibility  for  the  results  which  have  grown  up  under 


300    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


it.  I  have  a  right  to  plead  that  the  Church  is  not  the 
same  as  Churchmen,  but  I  have  no  right  to  speak  as  if 
they  had  nothing  to  do  with  one  another. 

These  criticisms  therefore  want  very  serious  con- 
sideration if  we  are  to  reahse  how  far  they  do  or  do  not 
invaHdate  our  behef  in  the  Church's  usefulness.  Ap- 
proaching the  matter  from  this  side  I  can  put  forward  ^ 
explanations  and  extenuations  of  our  actual  state  which 
would  be  worthless  if  I  were  merely  replying  to  charges. 
The  criticisms  fall  into  two  groups.  Of  those  which 
concern  our  practical  failings  I  need  say  nothing 
further  than  I  have  already  said.  They  are  just  those 
which  follow  from  a  system  too  exclusively  formal  and 
official.  The  second  group  of  criticisms  asserts  that 
what  I  have  called  the  Catholic  position  is  not  in  fact 
held  by  the  mass  of  Churchmen.  The  word  hold  is  here 
somewhat  ambiguous.  Certainly  I  must  admit  that 
the  mass  of  Church  people  have  not  realised  the  Catholic 
position. 

If  we  compare  the  case  of  the  Church  with  that  of 
Christianity  itself  we  may  see  how  different  a  man's 
realisation  is  from  what  he  holds,  or  at  least  from  that 
by  which  he  is  held.  There  are  multitudes  of  people 
who  have  the  very  vaguest  idea  what  the  essential 
principles  of  Christianity  are  ;  there  are  some  who,  if 
pressed,  will  maintain  that  there  is  no  essential  differ- 
ence between  Christianity  and  heathenism.  But  we 
should  all  refuse  to  allow  that  Christianity  had  no  prin- 
ciples merely  because  so  many  Christians  do  not  know 
what  they  are.  Again,  a  man  may  not  only  be  holding 
principles  and  living  by  them  without  being  able  to 
explain  them ;  they  may  be  holding  him,  influencing, 
actually  helping  to  mould,  his  Hfe  without  his 
having  much  consciousness  of  them.    The  power .  of 


• 


ANGLICANISM 


301 


Christianity  goes  far  deeper  into  the  Hfe  even  of  a 
'  nominal '  Christian  than  his  expressed  opinions  would 
suggest. 

The  same  distinction  must  be  recognised  among 
Churchmen.  If  we  are  pressed  in  argument  as  to  the 
difference  between  ourselves  and  Non-Conformists, 
many  of  us  would  find  our  minds  in  a  most  confused 
state.  We  have  lived  our  Churchmanship,  and  we 
hardly  know  or  have  ever  thought  which  is  really  the 
centre  on  which  the  system  hinges.  Yet  I  pointed  out 
that  if  we  analysed  any  one  of  the  whole  list  of  peculiari- 
ties which  distinguished  our  practice,  it  was  always  the 
sacramental  question  which  furnished  the  explanation. 
We  contended  for  Bishops  to  rule  the  Church,  because 
with  us  they  do  rule,  but  when  we  consider  the  varied 
forms,  we  find  that  we  do  not  really  care  how  much  they 
rule  so  long  as  they  only  ordain.  We  like  to  have  an 
ordained  minister,  but  on  second  thoughts  we  do  not 
very  much  care  who  ministers  so  long  as  a  priest  cele- 
brates. We  are  too  careless  about  training  our  clergy, 
very  largely  because  in  the  end  we  realise  this  formal 
sacramental  presentation  as  their  central  duty.  The 
Church  system  then  is  primarily  formal  and  sacramental 
in  every  thread  of  it.  We  do  know  that,  and  at 
critical  times  our  minds  go  back  to  it,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  very  few  continuously  think  of  it  that  way, 
and  that  many  of  us  are  altogether  unconscious  of  it. 

The  confused  state  of  our  minds  I  have  confessed  by 
the  mere  fact  of  writing  this  book.  If  we  had  known 
what  we  meant  ourselves,  it  would  have  been  quite 
unnecessary  to  disentangle  it  for  other  people.  If  we 
had  known  what  was  its  living  value,  other  people 
would  have  known  it  also.  For  my  part  I  beheve  the 
controversy  would  long  ago  have  been  at  an  end.  All 


302    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


controversies  take  on  an  air  of  dealing  with  opposed 
views.  Except  in  political  controversies — and  I  am 
not  sure  that  I  ought  to  except  them — the  discussions 
are  so  wearisome,  go  on  so  indefinitely,  because  it  is  so 
hard  to  find  out  what  the  views  are,  what  they  rest  upon 
and  mean.  Whenever  we  do  get  our  views  clear,  we 
begin  to  learn  ;  when  we  begin  to  learn  we  cease  to 
quarrel.  I  hope  the  Non-Conformists  will  not  be  cross 
if  I  say  that  we  are  not  the  only  people  who  are  con- 
fused about  our  own  meaning,  though  I  admit  they  are 
in  nothing  like  so  dense  a  fog  as  we  are.  The  Romans 
are  much  clearer  than  either  of  us.  Here  then  I  am  in 
a  paradox,  for  I  have  set  myself  this  to  maintain,  that 
those  who  are  most  confused  are  to  be  guides  and 
helpers  of  those  who  are  relatively  much  more  clear 
and  consistent.  Nevertheless,  to  a  theological  mind 
that  is  not  so  very  impossible.  If  God  chooses  the 
things  that  are  not  to  bring  to  naught  them  that  are,  per- 
haps He  may  have  a  use  even  for  our  muddled  selves. 

Why  is  it  that  the  Church  of  England  is  in  a  state  so 
confused  ?  From  my  point  of  view  that  is  a  question 
of  central  importance.  For  those  who  do  not  share  my 
views  it  is  still  a  question  of  considerable  scientific 
interest — psychologically,  theologically,  philosophically. 

At  the  Reformation  the  Church  of  England  began 
with  an  intention  to  be  Catholic,  to  maintain  and  to 
perpetuate  her  ancient  sacramental  system,  but  she 
meant  to  have  a  reformation  also.  Protestant  ideas 
were  all  about  her  ;  she  had  absorbed  them  ;  she  meant 
to  keep  them,  though  she  did  not  mean  to  give  up  what 
she  had.  She  tried  to  graft  the  one  upon  the  other. 
Non-Conformists  and  Romans  each  laid  their  hands  on 
one  factor  and  made  a  clear  system.  The  Roman 
system  was  a  httle  the  more  clear  of  the  two,  because  it 


ANGLICANISM 


303 


is  always  easier  to  be  clear  over  the  definite  and  posi- 
tive than  over  the  relative  and  moving.  The  Church 
believed  the  two  could  be  reconciled  ;  she  wanted, 
tried,  to  reconcile  them,  and  reached  a  very  poor  result. 
Of  course  it  is  always  difficult  to  reconcile  such  different 
principles,  and  for  at  least  three  well-defined  reasons 
the  Church  never  has  reconciled  them,  never  has  got 
further  than  a  compromise. 

In  the  first  place,  the  spht  with  the  Non-Con- 
formists carried  off  all  the  men  who  could  have  helped 
the  Church  to  realise  a  life  of  free  development.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  split  with  the  Romans  carried  off 
those  most  devoted  to  Sacramentalism.  To  this  I  have 
referred  before,  but  it  is  the  least  important  of  our 
reasons. 

In  the  second  place,  the  Church  was  forced  into  de- 
veloping a  free  life  of  her  own.  Partly  for  political 
reasons  that  also  had  to  take  fixed  forms,  but  this 
'  free  '  life — which  springs  from  our  human  activity, 
whether  the  special  religious  activity  of  prayers  or  the 
general  activity  of  our  occupations — necessarily  ab- 
sorbs the  human  attention.  Preparing  a  sermon  takes 
more  time  and  thought  than  preparing  for  a  celebration. 
The  sermon  also  produces  the  more  immediately  ob- 
vious results.  Sajdng  prayers,  making  a  meditation, 
are  an  effort ;  recei\dng  is  merely  passive.  God  is 
the  thing  we  take  for  granted,  as  we  take  for  granted 
our  breathing,  sleep,  food  ;  the  things  we  have  to  do 
and  our  manner  of  doing  them,  our  work  and  our 
morals,  are  always  before  us.  The  things  we  take  for 
granted  are  the  bigger  and  the  more  important,  but 
they  are  the  less  interesting,  part  of  our  lives. 

Thus  it  has  come  about  in  all  our  parishes  that 
running  about  after  people,  attracting  them,  swaying 


304    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


them,  visiting,  guilds,  clubs,  services,  occupy  the 
minds  both  of  priests  and  people.  The  meaning  of 
sacramental  worship  is  overlaid  by  *  prayers  *  and 
preaching.  Even  the  Communion  becomes  an  occa- 
sional extra. 

(3)  By  the  withdrawing  to  one  side  or  other  of 
those  who  were  most  in  earnest  over  them,  the  Church 
would  have  been  in  any  case  greatly  hampered  in  her 
attempt  to  do  justice  to  the  two  principles  she  was 
pledged  to  bring  together.  But  the  double  schism, 
or  split,  produced  a  far  worse  result.  It  created  a 
rivalry,  produced  a  spirit  of  antagonism  and  party 
loyalty,  which  rendered  it  impossible  to  make  a  serious 
attempt  at  reconciling,  or  even  understanding  and 
realising,  any  principles  at  all. 

Those  who  were  most  zealous  for  the  sacramental 
system  joined  the  Roman  communion,  and  their  in- 
fluence was  lost.  But  Rome  was  the  determined 
enemy  of  the  Church,  and  since  Rome  was  sacramental, 
in  order  to  be  a  '  loyal  Churchman '  it  was  necessary 
to  be  unsacramental.  We  all  know  the  absurd  lengths 
to  which  this  nervous  anxiety  to  be  un-Roman  has 
carried  people.  The  Romans  have  learnt  the  instinct 
of  worship.  Not  so  long  ago  reverence  and  devoutness 
in  Church  were  regarded  with  suspicion  as  being  too 
*  like  them  Romans.'  We  are  rather  pleased  with 
ourselves  for  having  got  rid  of  a  few  palpable  absurdi- 
ties, but  the  spirit  prevails  almost  as  much  as  ever. 

It  prevails  also  in  regard  to  Protestantism.  The 
Church  began  from  formal  worship,  of  which  sacra- 
mental worship  is  the  true  expression  ;  but  as  the 
Church  shrank  from  that,  she  applied  the  formal 
principle  to  prayer,  where  it  is  least  in  place.  Person- 
ally I  have  a  t^remendous  love  for  Matins  and  Evensong, 


ANGLICANISM 


305 


but  I  admit  that  they  are  very  difficult  to  follow.  The 
Church  meant  them  as  '  daily  services/  Of  course 
if,  modern-wise,  we  are  in  a  tremendous  hurry  to 
explain  everything  *  in  terms  of '  last  week's  thought 
before  next  week's  system  demands  an  entirely  new  set 
of  explanations,  the  *  offices  '  will  be  only  annoying. 
But  these  demands  remind  me  somewhat  of  the  amateur 
carpenter.  His  first  lesson  is  not  to  lean  on  his  saw, 
but  to  let  it  do  its  own  work  by  its  own  weight.  If  a 
man  will  say  his  Psalms  and  read  his  lections  through 
day  by  day  for  about  two  years,  without  troubling  to 
ask  exactly  how  much  he  can  *  explain,'  their  magni- 
ficent presentation  of  God's  reality  in  the  immense 
variety  of  His  operations,  in  sorrow  as  well  as  in  joy, 
in  the  darkness  of  spiritual  dryness,  loneliness,  failure, 
as  well  as  in  the  sunshine  of  experience,  in  natural 
judgment  upon  the  natural  as  well  as  in  the  comfort 
of  religious  relation,  will  begin  to  grip  his  mind,  to 
mould  in  it  the  habit  of  a  constant  faith. 

The  Church's  idea  of  *  daily  service  '  is  truly  a  magni- 
ficent thing.  If,  however,  we  take  up  our  Matins  and 
Evensong  at  rare  intervals,  say  once  a  week,  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  think  of  anything  less  suited  to 
common  use.  Of  course  the  Church  never  meant  them 
to  be  used  that  way  ;  she  meant  the  Psalms  to  be  read 
through  every  month,  and  the  whole  Bible  every  year — 
the  New  Testament  twice.  But  whatever  the  Church 
meant — a  matter  about  which  we  never  enquire — 
Matins  and  Evensong  are  the  Sunday  services  of  the 
Church  by  habit.  We  are  partisans  of  the  Church  ; 
Matins  and  Evensong  we  must  have.  If  the  Psalms 
are  difficult  to  follow,  let  us  sing  them — to  Anglican 
chants.  This  is  commonly  supposed  to  add  the  some- 
what indefinite  quality  of  '  brightness  '  ;  it  does  not 

u 


3o6    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


add  intelligibility,  and  it  does  make  the  service  so 
much  longer  that  any  serious  preaching  is  impossible. 

The  laity  in  increasing  numbers  call  the  service 
tedious  and  the  preaching  poor,  but  they  will  not  have 
anything  else.  Sacramental  worship  is  intelligible 
to  the  youngest  child,  if  he  only  believes,  but  that  is 
*  Roman.'  Extempore  prayers,  properly  handled,  care- 
fully adapted,  would  be  really  helpful,  and  would  leave 
opportunity  for  serious  preaching  which  would  call  out 
power,  but  that  would  be  '  too  like  them  Dissenters.' 
To  combine  all  these,  worship,  free  prayer,  full 
preaching,  at  different  times  would  be  a  fulfilling  of 
the  Church's  aim,  but  it  would  be  against  our  habits. 
In  other  words  we  cannot  do  that,  simply  because  we 
do  not  do  it. 

I  admit,  therefore,  that  our  practice  is  in  utter  con- 
fusion, but  not  because  the  Church  has  no  principles. 
The  Church  has  principles,  and  we  have  very  true  and 
sound  instincts  as  to  their  nature  and  requirements, 
but  we  have  never  thought  them  out.  Consequently 
we  do  not  understand  the  meaning  of  the  Church's 
system  ;  we  do  not  know  what  the  different  parts 
stand  for,  what  are  their  relations  or  the  place  of  each. 
In  default  of  an  understood  meaning  we  are  at  the 
mercy  of  the  customs  which  have  grown  up  under  the 
most  diverse  influences  and  circumstances,  but  which 
are  now  all  hedged  in  safely  by  hatred  of  '  innovations  ' 
and  threats  of  '  disloyalty.' 

One  might  say  therefore  that  the  Church  failed 
because  she  grasped  two  principles  at  once  and  that 
always  does  make  a  difficult  situation,  instead  of  taking 
one  principle  only  which  makes  an  easy  situation. 
Unfortunately  the  Church  did  not  recognise  the  diffi- 
culty of  her  task.    Not  having  understood  her  principles 


ANGLICANISM 


307 


or  their  relation,  she  never  really  set  about  reconciling, 
or  combining  them  ;  she  only  compromised  between 
them.  She  followed  each  too  feebly  and  inconsistently 
to  get  its  best  out  of  it,  and  yet  sufficiently  far  to  prevent 
her  getting  the  best  out  of  its  fellow. 

Certainly  I  agree  with  the  Non-Conformists  that  it 
is  utterly  useless  for  us  to  ask  them  to  come  into 
our  actual  AngHcan  system  as  it  is  practised.  They 
on  their  side  will  not  Hsten  to  such  a  proposal  for 
a  moment.  What  presentable  reasons  have  we  for 
urging  that  they  should  ?  Why  should  they  change 
their  '  free  *  services  for  our  morning  and  evening 
prayer — with  a  sermon  ?  For  the  purpose  for  which 
both  are  used,  theirs  seems  to  me  far  the  more  suit- 
able. If  we  mean  no  more  by  our  sacraments  than 
they  do  by  theirs,  why  should  they  upset  their  usage  to 
put  the  same  thing  in  its  place  ?  Of  course  we  should 
thus  gain  a  unity  of  some  sort,  but  the  Non-Conformists 
would  have  to  pay  a  heavy  price  for  what  can  be 
equally  well  gained  by  toleration. 

That  unity  of  toleration,  not  the  few  but  the  large 
mass  of  Church  people,  earnestly,  obstinately,  rejects. 
Why  ?  I  admit  that  most  of  us  talk  somewhat  lamely 
of  a  Divine  foundation,  the  claim  to  which  can  only  be 
made  good  in  a  warfare  of  historical  criticism  as  dubious 
in  result  as  it  is  futile.  Whole  libraries  of  controversial 
books  have  been  written  without  our  getting  one 
step  nearer  a  conclusion.  The  stakes  are  too  high  to 
allow  either  party  to  acknowledge  defeat.  Charges  of 
obstinacy  and  perversity  are  mere  brickbats,  which, 
if  they  do  us  any  damage,  also  supply  ammunition  for 
a  return  fire.  If  this  large  mass  of  Church  people  are 
obstinate,  is  it  not  plain  that  there  are  at  the  back  of 
their  minds,  or  in  their  instincts,  those  very  principles 


3o8    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


of  a  sacramental  reality  which  it  must  be  admitted  our 
habitual  system  very  feebly  sets  forth  ?  We  shall  be 
doing  something  to  clear  the  issue  if  we  make  it  plain 
that  it  is  Church  principles,  not  the  actual  Church 
practice,  which  we  are  urging  Non-Conformists  to 
accept.  I  am  going  to  involve  myself  here  in  a  small 
contradiction.    I  will  set  out  its  two  sides. 

(i)  I  ask  the  Non-Conformists  to  accept  from  us  what 
we  have  to  give.  It  is  a  most  unpleasant  way  of 
opening,  but  I  ask  them  to  be  patient  while  I  put  the 
whole  before  them.  For  this  purpose  I  will  try  to 
summarise  here  what  I  have  urged  more  at  length 
elsewhere. 

If  this  proposal  is  to  be  met  by  a  quasi-papal 
non  possumus,  by  some  such  assertion  as  this :  '  Our 
Non-Conformist  system  is  fully  complete,  defective  on 
no  side,'  then  there  is  no  unity  possible  except  by  sur- 
render. We  Churchmen  could  only  enter  it  by  giving 
up  our  belief  in  the  necessity,  nay  even  in  the  existence 
of  the  gift  of  a  sacramental  Presence,  for  if  that  Presence 
can  be  given  in  the  way  we  believe,  plainly  a  system 
which  does  not  recognise  that  gift  must  be  incomplete. 

I  am  not,  however,  asking  Non-Conformists  merely 
to  *  come  in  '  in  the  sense  of  surrendering  one  set  of 
principles  for  another,  freedom  for  sacrament alism. 
I  have  urged  that  the  two  were  rather  correlatives, 
necessary  to  one  another. 

I  have  not  asked  Non-Conformity  to  abandon  any 
principle  or  belief  it  possesses,  except  indeed  the  belief 
that  it  was  altogether  rich  and  in  need  of  nothing.  I 
know  the  Non-Conformists  believe,  as  we  do,  in  the 
objective  reality  of  God,  in  objective  and  real  grace. 
I  think  they  are  conscious,  however,  that  this  is  some- 
what their  weaker  side,  which  has  to  be  maintained 


ANGLICANISM 


309 


with  some  effort.  I  have  tried  to  show  that  the 
present  constitution  of  Non-Conformity  does  not  allow 
of  an  adequate  presentation  of  objective  religion. 

Of  course  I  am  not  for  a  moment  supposing  that 
Non-Conformists  are  ready  to  admit  that.  I  have 
discussed  the  point  at  great  length  in  my  first  part.  I 
am  only  holding  out  my  hands,  pleading  with  them 
that  this  long  severance  cannot  have  been  on  our  side 
over  nothing,  any  more  than  on  theirs,  pleading  that 
it  should  be  thought  over  prayerfully,  critically, 
earnestly,  pleading  that  it  should  not  be  merely  swept 
away  with  a  set  '  We  are  not  going  to  look  at 
anything.' 

I  ask  for  sympathy,  because  I  feel  it.  All  this  is 
intensely  difficult  and  painful  for  me  to  say,  because 
I  know  how  difficult  and  painful  it  is  for  others  to  listen 
to,  how  natural  it  will  be  for  them  to  resent  it,  but  I 
am  coming  now  to  the  hardest  point  of  all,  which  yet 
I  cannot  shirk.  If  there  is  any  truth  at  all  in  the 
essential  position — if,  without  admitting  that  there  is, 
others  will  at  least  consider  whether  there  may  not  be 
— something,  this  something,  this  sacramental  basis, 
which  Non-Conformity  needs  in  order  to  make  its  own 
system  really  safe,  really  strong,  really  capable  of  de- 
veloping its  whole  power — as  I  earnestly  desire  it 
should — then  this  basis  only  can  be  accepted. 

The  Non-Conformists  can  no  more  make  a  sacra- 
mental system  for  themselves  than  we  can.  Once 
more,  it  is  the  essence  of  a  sacrament  that  it  is  a  gift, 
and  it  is  the  essence  of  a  gift  that  you  must  first  receive 
it ;  you  cannot  take  it.  In  Communion  the  Body  of 
Christ  is  given.  At  ordination  the  power  to  consecrate 
is  received.  A  sacramental  system  cannot  be  '  de- 
veloped,' cannot  be  created  by  merely  saying — that 


310    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


is  what  we  will  have  or  do.  Our  doctrine  of  ordination, 
of  Apostolical  succession,  of  a  historic  episcopate,  has 
neither  meaning  nor  value  save  in  this  respect  that  it 
is  the  essential  witness  that  that  which  is  done  is  of 
God.  My  hope  is  then  that  at  last,  if  we  will  be  patient, 
if  we  wait,  seeking  the  truth  till  God  shows  it  to  us,  Non- 
Conformists  and  we  may  be  found  kneeling  together  to 
receive  the  same  gift. 

So  far  I  have  only  been  summarising,  and  what  ? 
'  A  futile  dream  '  ?  It  may  be  ;  at  present  I  know  it 
seems  so,  yet  I  would  ask  my  brothers  to  consider  this. 
Is  not  that  dream  at  least  on  the  hne — as  nothing  else 
is  on  the  line — of  what  on  general  principles  we  find 
as  the  basis  of  all  unity  ?  As  scientists  men  differ  in 
opinions  or  in  theories  about  things  ;  as  practical,  men 
differ  in  their  uses  of  things.  But  much  as  we  differ 
in  all  that  is  our  own,  in  the  sameness  of  the  fact,  there 
at  least  is  the  ground  of  unity  ;  in  reverence  for  fact  as 
such  there  is  already  some  beginning  of  the  attainment 
of  unity. 

I  have  personally  an  immense  belief  in  the  Church 
of  England,  not  in  spite  of  my  damaging  admissions 
nor  in  spite  of  her  defects.  *  Anglicanism  is  a  failure.' 
If  anybody  cares  to  say  so,  I  shall  not  dissent ;  at 
best  she  is  a  very  poor  success.  She  is  a  failure — or  a 
very  poor  success — because  she  has  held  on  steadily 
to  two  principles.  I  do  not  claim  that  we  have  shown 
any  special  wisdom  in  doing  so.  It  would  be  absurd 
to  suppose  that  a  few  millions  odd  had  a  higher  average 
level  of  intelligence  or  spirituality  than  any  other  body 
of  men,  though  it  would  be  gratuitous  to  suppose  that 
they  were  more  stupid. 

I  do  not  believe,  nor  ask  anyone  to  believe,  in  our 
bishops,  nor  in  our  parish  clergy,  nor  in  our  laity,  nor 


ANGLICANISM 


in  the  E.C.U.,  nor  for  the  matter  of  that  have  I  any 
special  disbehef  in  them.  We  Churchmen,  leaders 
and  people,  have  in  times  past  as  up  to  this  present, 
done  every  foolish  thing  we  could  find  to  do,  punctuated 
by  an  occasional  wise  thing  to  give  variety — same  as 
other  folk.  We  talked  of  broadmindedness,  toleration 
and  the  reconciling  of  principles.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
we  just  had  our  own  notions,  and  did  our  best  to  drive 
out  everything  we  didn't  agree  with,  which  is  also 
amazingly  like  other  folk.  If  Anghcanism  were  a 
more  thorough-going  exponent  and  consistent  exponent 
of  Catholicism,  she  would  be  less  useful.  If  she  has 
still  kept  those  vast  possibilities  unimpaired,  it  is 
because  God  meant  she  should,  and  over-ruled  our 
stupidities.  The  machinery  of  our  self-will  failed  us. 
I  have  no  mind  left  to  believe  in  men  by  whatever 
names  they  are  called.    I  believe  in  God. 

(2)  Now  I  come  to  my  second  point  very  solemnly. 
I  said  I  believed  in  the  Church  of  England,  so  that  I 
only  could  ask  Non-Conformists  to  accept  from  her  that 
which  she  holds — meaning  thereby  not  our  opinions, 
but  her  sacramental  grace.  A  sufficiently  preposterous 
request !  I  said  that  my  second  point  w^ould  seem  a 
contradiction.  I  do  not  ask  them  to  accept  a  Church 
system  but  to  make  one  ;  it  exists  in  the  Church  as  a 
possibility,  as  a  principle  ;  I  am  calling  to  them  to 
accept  it  in  order  that  they  may  make  it  a  reahty  for 
us  as  well  as  for  themselves.  My  sentences  may  be 
obscure  and  confused,  but  they  are  not  half  so  obscure 
and  confused  as  the  condition  into  which  we  have  all 
drifted.  I  can  straighten  out  my  sentences  ;  who  is 
going  to  unravel  the  tangle  of  our  Christianity  ? 

At  least  I  can  do  my  part.  I  beHeve  then  that  the 
whole  future  of  Christianity  lies  in  the  reconcihng,  hes 


312    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


in  the  combining,  of  these  two  elements.  Because  I 
beheve  in  God,  I  am  not  going  to  say  that  an37thing 
is  impossible,  but  so  far  as  human  sight  can  go  it  does 
seem  impossible  that  the  Enghsh  Church  should  carry 
out  her  system,  reconcile  her  principles,  by  herself. 
We  are  all  fenced  in  by  the  thorns  of  Church  customs 
— which  are  not  really  Church  customs  at  all.  But — 
may  I  say  it  in  all  love  ? — it  is  Non-Conformity  and 
Roman  Catholicism  which  have  made  our  system  im- 
possible to  us.  We  live  hke  men  in  a  beleagured  city 
under  martial  law.  The  necessity  of  keeping  watch 
and  ward,  the  perpetual  anticipation  of  more  bomb- 
shells, the  continual  firing  of  big  guns,  has  created  a 
nervous  tension  which  finds  expression  in  the  continual 
dread  of  summary  court-martials  for  '  spies '  and 
'  traitors,'  until  the  very  power  to  go  about  our  business 
like  reasonable  beings  has  passed  from  us.  When  you 
may  be  put  against  a  wall  and  shot  any  moment — as 
has  happened  to  this  writer  several  times — even  if  the 
shooting  is  amazingly  bad,  and  a  foreseeing  pro- 
vidence has  only  provided  blank  ammunition  so  that 
it  would  do  equally  well  for  a  salute,  the  firing  party 
is  so  dreadfully  solemn  that  everybody  is  afraid  to  laugh 
and  commonsense  goes  out  of  life. 

Enemy  dear,  I  have  not  been  spying,  but  I  have 
talked  to  some  of  you  under  a  flag  of  truce  ;  is  it  so 
very  different  on  your  side  of  the  wall  ?  Do  we  not 
aU — in  private — know  our  weakness,  yet  when  we  get 
on  a  platfoim  or  write  books — as  I  em  doing — drums 
beating,  bugles  sounding,  officers  waving  their  swords 
in  front,  sergeants  shouting  '  no  use,'  '  impossible,* 
*  not  to  be  thought  of,'  at  the  laggards  behind,  dust 
rising  in  clouds — it  is  very  exhilarating,  but  a  little 
more  like  Hyde  Park  than  the  real  thing  on  the  veldt. 


ANGLICANISM 


313 


Does  it  get  things  on  ?  Is  it  business  ?  Would  not 
a  little  quiet  thinking  be  more  helpful  ?  If  we  could 
get  peace  that  we  might  buy  and  sell,  there  are  pearls 
of  exceeding  price  on  both  sides,  the  value  of  which 
we  must  learn  carefuUy  that  we  may  increase  in  eternal 
riches  by  mutual  commerce. 

I  did  not  urge  that  Non-Conformists  should  come 
into  our  actual  system,  because  my  whole  hope  is  that 
they  will  see,  as  an  outsider  may  see,  what  the  real 
strength  of  the  Church  system  is  better  than  we  our- 
selves do  ;  that  thus  coming  in  with  fresh  minds  they 
will  break  down  those  hedges  which  I  am  afraid  they 
provided  us  with  our  lamentably  poor  excuse  for 
building  up.  Their  separation — whose ver  fault  it 
was — has  brought  to  us  something  like  ossification 
and  death.  Their  reconciling  would  be  to  us  life  from 
the  dead. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  endorse  or  admit  the  whole  of 
those  drastic  criticisms  I  collected  in  the  earlier  part  of 
this  chapter.  I  do  not  know  that  my  judgment  would 
have  any  weight,  yet  for  thirty  years  I  have  watched 
with  a  wondering  and  sorrowing  attention  the  efforts 
of  reformers  of  all  kinds  to  induce  the  Anglican  Com- 
munion to  pay  some  serious  heed  to  the  possibilities 
around  her.  But  the  Church — abroad  as  well  as  at 
home,  free  or  established — is  so  soaked  in  those  twin 
ideals  of  the  '  well  organised  diocese  '  and  the  *  well 
worked  parish,'  that,  while  in  these  directions  there  has 
been  considerable  progress,  the  width  of  outlook  neces- 
sary for  anything  which  cannot  be  brought  under  those 
ideals  has  nigh  ceased  to  exist.  In  general,  the  un- 
willingness to  use  or  even  consider  what  might  suggest 
a  doubt  as  to  the  all-sufficiency  of  the  official  routine, 
the  inability  to  face  results  which  everybody  knows 


314    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


will  not  bear  talking  about,  the  readiness  to  gloss  them 
over  rather  than  admit  that  there  are  things  to  which 
the  customary  procedure  is  not  adequate,  the  blank 
indifference  to  the  most  obvious  opportunities  which 
cannot  be  reduced  to  parochial  or,  at  best,  diocesan 
terms,  the  jealous  suspicion  of  the  devoted  enthusiasm 
of  her  own  children  if  it  seems  to  move — as  it  must 
move — somewhat  outside  those  official  hues,  the  con- 
sequent inability  to  produce  such  enthusiasm  on  an 
adequately  effective  scale ;  all  these — which  any  on- 
looker could  illustrate  with  a  score  of  instances  one  way 
or  another  within  his  own  experience — are  as  incredible 
as,  to  one  who  loves  the  Church,  they  are  heart-break- 
ing. I  am  in  this  paragraph  giving  only  my  own 
personal  opinion  when  I  say  that  I  have  learnt  to  doubt 
whether  any  great  measure  of  church  reform  can  be 
carried  through  till  we  can  bring  to  it  from  somewhere 
a  new  mind,  in  earnest  over  principles  and  ends,  less 
absorbed  over  narrow  personal  and  local  sections,  less 
nervously  jealous  over  formalities. 

'  Herein  I  am  getting  more  preposterous.  I  ask  Non- 
Conformists  to  submit,  and  now  it  turns  out  I  propose 
it  because  it  would  be  helpful  to  us  !  '  I  have  said, 
however,  and  I  say  it  again,  that  it  is  quite  impossible 
for  either  of  us  to  accept  anything  or  to  submit  to  any- 
thing, except  because  it  is  true,  and  because  through 
earnest  and  reverent  consideration  God  has  brought  us 
to  see  it  thus.  If  the  Non-Conformists  do  accept 
something,  it  can  only  be  because  they  have  learnt  to 
see  in  the  Church  elements  which  are  not  inconsistent 
with,  but  necessary  to,  what  God  has  already  given 
them. 

If  I  have  urged  any  other  reasons,  it  is  only  as  prima 
facie  grounds  for  making  such  consideration.  Notably 


ANGLICANISM 


315 


just  here  I  have  emphasised  (i)  that  I  did  not  want  our 
confused  state  to  blind  them,  as  it  has  so  largely  blinded 
us,  to  the  real  essence  of  the  Church  position  ;  (2)  that 
I  fully  realise,  as  I  believe  most  Churchmen  realise,  that 
Non-Conformists  could  not  join  the  Church  by  mere 
submission  or  acceptance,  and  neither  I  nor  we  in  the 
least  wish  they  should.  We  are  looking  to  them  in  the 
hope  that  they  will  not  only  add  to  us  what  we  have 
not  got,  but  help  us  to  enter  into  the  meaning  of  what 
we  have. 

Certainly  I  think  that  what  I  propose  would  be  an 
advantage  to  Non-Conformists — more,  it  would  be  an 
unspeakable  gain  to  Non-Conformity,  not  only  to  the 
individuals,  but  to  the  spirit  and  power  of  the  system — 
as  well  as  to  the  Church  and  to  her  system,  but  I  am 
not  really  thinking  about  either  of  them  in  this  sense. 
I  am  thinking  of  Christianity  ;  I  am  thinking  of  God's 
honour  ;  I  am  thinking  of  that  huge  mass  of  the  world 
for  whom  Christ  died.  I  am  wondering  how  it  is  to  be 
won,  what  is  the  whole  single  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  by 
which  it  can  be  redeemed,  what  is  the  religious  presen- 
tation of  that  Gospel  as  whole  and  single  which  can  be 
set  forth  effectively.  *  Alas,'  said  S.  Augustine  to  the 
Donatists,  '  here  is  our  flock  and  here  is  yours,  but 
where  is  the  flock  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  '  Can  that  be 
brought  together  by  halves  ?  Is  it  not  abundantly 
plain  that  it  never  will  be  nor  can  be  brought  back  save 
by  a  Gospel  whole,  intact,  harmonious,  the  simple  act 
witnessing  to  the  simple  fact,  what  happens  and  is  done 
bringing  before  us  now  and  here  the  actual  truth  of 
what  did  happen  and  was  done  once  for  all,  and  yet 
the  gift  received  in  submission  passing  outwards  in 
fulness  of  individual  hfe,  ever  so  varied,  spontaneous, 
free  ? 


3i6    THE  CHURCH  AND  RELIGIOUS  UNITY 


When  we  get  up  on  a  platform  every  fibre  in  us 
resents,  of  course  it  resents,  the  suggestion  that  this 
Gospel  we  have  held,  preached  and  duly  argued  about, 
is  not  complete.  We  cannot  accept  this,  and  we 
cannot  accept  that,  but  the  world  will  not  be  redeemed 
by  negations.  When  we  drop  our  arguments  and  look 
broadly  at  the  world,  what  are  the  facts  ?  What  is 
the  voice  of  God  saying  in  them  ?  Is  it  not  evident 
that  there  must  be  something  on  each  side  which  we 
have  not  yet  understood  ?  When  we  look  at  God's 
Gospel,  is  it  not  evident  that  this  something  in  the  way, 
over  which  we  are  incessantly  stumbling,  must  be  at 
least  somewhat  of  the  kind  I  have  put  out,  somewhat 
in  rough  measure  similar  to  the  difference  of  basis  and 
development,  fact  and  apprehension,  objective  and  sub- 
jective, creed  and  thought,  sacrament  and  prayer  ? 

Is  it  not  something  hidden  in  the  mystery  of  the 
Trinity,  in  the  double  sending  forth,  first,  of  the  Son, 
given  once  for  all  in  the  Incarnation,  offering  once  for 
all  the  one  full,  perfect  and  sufficient  Sacrifice,  and, 
secondly,  of  the  Spirit  working  continually  among  all, 
which  we  have  to  realise  as  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead, 
Manifest  and  Operative  ? 

Is  not  this  just  the  pattern  of  the  unity  we  have 
missed,  and  of  which  Christianity  is  still  in  travail  ? 
What  matter  our  words  and  our  arguments — mine  or 
another's  ?  Oh !  that  God  would  show  Himself,  that 
He  would  take  the  matter  into  His  own  hands,  that  He 
would  take  us  into  His  hands,  that  He  would  fulfil  in  us 
His  Will,  that  we  might  be  one  as  He  is  ! 

O  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Only  Begotten  Son  of  the  Father, 
Who  rulest  over  all  things  from  the  Creation  of  the 
World,  with  Whom  it  is  to  guide  the  hearts  of  men,  to 


ANGLICANISM 


317 


Whom  all  judgement  hath  been  committed  because 
Thou  art  the  Son  of  Man ;  judge  us  not  according  to  our 
self-will,  but  as  Thou  didst  pray,  *  As  Thou,  Father,  art 
in  Me  and  I  in  Thee,  that  they  also  may  be  one  in  Us/ 
even  so  according  to  Thy  Will  be  it  done  unto  us. 


Amen.  Come,  Lord  Jesus. 


GLASGOW  :   PRINTED  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS  BY  ROBERT  MACLEHOSE  AND  CO.  LTD. 


Date  Due 


